Category Archives: Elite Mischief

Operation Elveden dragging their feet over Piers Morgan

May 17, 2013 – 4:10 pm

To DC Paulette Rooke

Operation Eleveden

Metropolitan Police

New Scotland Yard

8/10 The Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Commander Neil Basu

John Whittingdale MP

George Eustice MP

John Whittingdale MP

George Eustice MP

Gerald Howarth MP

Keir Starmer (DPP)

mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk

17 May 2013

Dear DC Rooke

It is now more than four months since I submitted to Operation Elveden cast iron evidence of Piers Morgan’s illicit receipt of information from the police, Jeff Edwards’ illicit receipt of information from the Met Police, the perjury of Morgan and Edwards before the Leveson Inquiry and Det Supt Jeff Curtis’ failure to meaningfully investigate Edwards and Morgan’s involvement in receiving information illicitly from the police.

To recap, the evidence I have provided includes a letter from Piers Morgan when editor of the Mirror to the PCC in which he admits receiving the illicit information, a Mirror story which contains information which could only have been obtained illicitly from the police and a tape recording between Jeff Edwards and me in which D-Supt Curtis states that he will be interviewing Morgan and Edwards and says the matter is straightforward because of the evidence I had provided. Curtis then failed to interview anybody at the Mirror or have any check made of their records for evidence of payments for information.

With such rock-hard evidence in your possession, I think most people would be utterly astonished that no investigation appears to have commenced after 4 months. Yet that is, to the best of my knowledge, exactly what has happened. I have had no substantive contact with Operation Elveden since I submitted the complaint and my requests to give a formal statement and meet to discuss the matter further with a senior officer have been ignored. When you reply please tell me exactly what has been done so far to investigate this matter .

I repeat my requests to give a formal statement and meet with a senior officer from Operation Elveden to discuss the progress of my complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

The EU IN/OUT referendum: strategy and tactics for those who want to leave the EU

April 1, 2013 – 8:08 pm

Robert Henderson

The general strategy

A) How to leave

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html).

The OUT camp must make it clear that it would be both damaging and unnecessary for the UK to abide by this Treaty requirement. It would allow the EU to inflict considerable damage on the UK both during the period prior to formally leaving and afterwards if the price of leaving with the EU’s agreement was for UK to sign up to various obligations, for example, to continue paying a large annual sum to the EU for ten years . It would also give the Europhile UK political elite ample opportunity to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. More of them later.

There is also the danger that the stay-in camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because of this treaty requirement.

The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply by passing an Act of Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could object to this because all three have, at one time or another, declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.

If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments.

The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used against them because it will make them look suspicious. Before the vote

B) The parties’ plans of action if there is a vote to leave

It is important that all the parties likely to have seats in the Commons after the next election are publicly and relentlessly pressed to give at least a broad outline of what action they would adopt in the event of a vote to leave. Left with a free hand there is a serious danger that whatever British government is in charge after a vote to leave would attempt to bind the UK back into the EU by stealth by signing the UK up to agreements such as those the EU has with Norway and Switzerland which mean that they have to (1) pay a fee to the EU annually, (2) adopt the social legislation which comes from the EU and (3) most importantly agree to the four “freedoms” of the EU – the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour throughout not merely the EU but the wider European Economic Area (EEA).

It is probable that the Westminster parties will all resist this, but that would present them with two problems. First, a refusal to do so would make them seem untrustworthy; second, if one party laid out their position but the others did not, that would potentially give the party which did say what it would do a considerable advantage over the others which did not. If no party puts its plans before the public before the referendum, there should be demands from those who want the UK to leave the EU that any new treaties with the EU must be put to a referendum and, if they are rejected, the UK will simply trade with the EU under the WTO rules.

C) Repudiate re-negotiation before the referendum

Supporting the negotiation of a new relationship between the UK and the EU before a referendum is mistaken because it would seem to many to be giving tacit approval for renegotiation and legitimise the possibility of the UK remaining within the EU. It is also rash because the likelihood of the EU giving nothing is probably very small. Indeed, they might well give something which is substantial, because the UK leaving the EU would be a very great blow to the organisation. The UK is the country with the second largest population within the EU with , depending on how it is measured, the second or third largest economy and the country which pays the second largest contribution to the EU budget. For the EU to lose the UK would not only be a blow in itself, it would also create a very strong precedent for every other EU state, especially the largest ones. If the UK left and prospered the temptation would be for other EU states to leave.

But even if negotiation produced nothing of substance as Harold Wilson’s “renegotiation” did in 1975, it would be a mistake to imagine that it would not influence the referendum result. The electorate is divided between the resolute come outs, the resolute stay-ins and the wavering middle. A claim by the stay-in campaigners that something had been conceded by the EU, however insignificant, would provide the waverers with an excuse to vote to stay in because they could convince themselves they were voting for change.

It would be also be a mistake to see the EU offering nothing at all as a gift for the OUT camp. This is because the waverers might simply see that as evidence that the EU was too powerful to oppose and shift their votes to staying in.

Those who want the UK to leave should unambiguously put the case for no renegotiation. Dismiss anything Cameron (or any other PM) brings back from the EU by way of altered terms as being irrelevant because the EU has a long record of agreeing things with the UK and then finding ways of sabotaging what was agreed. In addition, a future British government may agree to alter any terms offered at the time of the referendum. The classic example of this changing of agreed terms happening in the past is Tony Blair’s giving up of a substantial amount of the Thatcher rebate in return for a promised reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a promise which was never met. That episode produced my all-time favourite amongst Blair’s penchant for lying. Two days before he went to the EU meeting at which he gave away a substantial part of the rebate he declared during Prime Minister’s Questions that the rebate was “non-negotiable – period”

It is difficult to envisage any British prime minister not trying to negotiate with the EU before a referendum, but it might just happen if whoever is in power when the referendum is announced were to be told privately by the major EU players that nothing will be given and the prime minister of the day concludes it would be best to pretend that a decision had been made not to negotiate rather than risk the humiliation of getting nothing, perhaps not even a pretence of negotiation before nothing is given. Why would the EU do this? They might calculate that it would be a gamble worth taking to send a British PM away with nothing whilst hoping the referendum vote would be to stay in because then the power of the UK to resist further integration would be shot.

If the EU offer nothing, the OUT camp should welcome the fact and stress to the public that if the referendum is to stay-in the EU could force any federalist measure through because not only would any British government be much weakened in its opposition to more federalism, the UK political class as a whole would more than willing to go along with it because of their ideological commitment to the EU.

D) After the vote

Ideally the government which deals with the EU after a vote to leave will have committed themselves to a plan of action before the referendum vote. However, as described above, it is quite possible that this will not happen because the UK’s overwhelmingly Europhile political class will try to re-entangle the UK with the EU. To prevent them doing so there should be a concerted campaign after the vote to ensure that the British public understands what is being done on their behalf with a demand for a further referendum to agree any new treaty.

The terms of the debate

It is essential that the Europhiles are not allowed to make the debate revolve around economics. If they do it will effectively stifle meaningful debate. As anyone who has ever tried to present economic ideas to an audience of the general public will know it is a soul-destroying experience. Take the question of how much of UK trade is with the EU. The debate will begin with the stay-in camp saying something like 45% of UK trade is with the EU. Those wanting to leave the EU will respond by saying it is probably less than 40% because of the Rotterdam/Antwerp effect . They will then be forced to explain what the Rotterdam/Amsterdam, effect is. That is the point where the general public’s concentration is lost and the debate ends up proving nothing to most of the audience.

But although nothing is proved to the general audience by detailed economic argument , the audience will remember certain phrases which have considerable traction. In amongst the serious debating on the issue of trade there will be phrases such as three million jobs in Britain rely on the EU and dire threats about how the EU will simply not buy British goods and services any more. This is nonsense but fear is not a rational thing and many of those who vote will enter the voting chamber with fear of losing their jobs in their heads regardless of what the OUT camp says if the debate is predominantly about economics. Shift the debate away from economics and the fear inducing phrases will be heard less often. If the BIG LIE is not repeated often enough its potency fades.

National Sovereignty

How should those wanting to leave the EU shift the focus of debate? They should put the matter which is really at the core of the UK’s relationship with the EU – national sovereignty – at the front of the OUT camp’s referendum campaign. Campaign under a slogan such as Are we to be masters in our own house?

Making national sovereignty the primary campaigning issue has the great advantage of it being something that anyone can understand because it is both a simple concept and speaks directly to the natural tribal instincts of human beings. Being a simple concept readily and naturally understood, it is a far more potent debating tool than arguments attempting to refute the economic arguments beloved of the stay-in camp. The fact that the natural tribal instincts have been suppressed for so long in the UK will increase its potency because most people will feel a sense of release when it begins to be catered for in public debate.

The appeal to national sovereignty has a further advantage. Those who support the EU are unused to debating on that ground. That is because uncritical support for the EU has long been the position of both the British mainstream political class as a class and of the mass media. That has meant that the contrary voice – that which wishes Britain to be independent – has been largely unheard in public debate for thirty years or more. Where it has been heard the response of the pro-EU majority has not been rational argument but abuse ranging from patronising dismissal of a wish for sovereignty as an outmoded nationalism to accusations that national sovereignty amounts to xenophobia or even racism. These tactics – of excluding those who want to leave the EU from public debate and abuse substituted for argument – will no longer be available to the pro EU lobby.

Immigration

The most threatening and energising subject relating to the EU for the general public is immigration. The public are right to identify this as the most important aspect of our membership of the EU because immigration touches every important part of British life: jobs, housing, education, welfare, healthcare, transport, free expression and crime besides radically changing the nature of parts of the UK which now have large populations of immigrants and their descendants.

The public rhetoric of mainstream politicians and the media is changing fast as they begin to realise both what an electoral liability a de facto open door immigration policy is as the effects of mass immigration become ever more glaring. The argument is shifting from the economic to the cultural. For example, here is the Daily Telegraph in a leader of 25 March:

“The fact is that, for many in Britain (especially those outside the middle classes), it is not just a matter of jobs being taken or public services being stretched, but of changes in the very character of communities. Those changes may not necessarily be for the worse: as the Prime Minister says, Britain’s culture has long been enriched by the contributions of new arrivals. But as long as ministers treat immigration as a matter of profit and loss, rather than the cause of often wrenching social change, they will never be able fully to address the grievances it causes.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9952717/Immigration-and-the-limits-of-the-possible.html)

This new frankness in public debate means that the OUT camp can use the immigration argument freely provided they keep the language within the confines of formal politeness. The subject will naturally dovetail with the emphasis on national sovereignty because the most important aspect of sovereignty is the ability to control the borders of the territory of a state. Judged by their increasing willingness to talk publicly about immigration, it is probable that the mainstream UK parties will be content to go along with ever more frank discussion about immigration.

The economic argument must be kept simple

It will not be possible to avoid economic arguments entirely. The OUT camp should concentrate on repeating these two facts:

- The disadvantageous balance of payments deficit the UK has with the EU

- The amount the UK pays to the EU

Those are the most solid economic figures relating to the EU. There is some fuzziness around the edges of the balance of payments deficit because of the question of where all the imports end up (whether in the EU or outside the EU through re-exporting) , while the amount the EU receives is solid but it has to be broken down into the money which returns to the UK and the amount retained by Brussels. Nonetheless these are the most certain figures and the least susceptible to obfuscation by the stay-in side.

The best way of presenting the money paid to the EU is simply to say that outside the EU we can decide how all of it is spent in this country and to illustrate what the money saved by not paying it to the EU would pay for.

It will also be necessary to address the question of protectionist measures the EU might take against the UK if the vote was to leave. It is improbable that the EU would place heavy protectionist barriers on UK exports because:

1. The massive balance of payment deficit between the UK and the rest of the EU which is massively in the EU’s favour.

2. Although the rest of the EU dwarfs the UK economy, much UK trade with the EU is heavily concentrated in certain regions of the EU. The effect of protectionist barriers would bear very heavily on these places.

3. There are strategically and economically important joint projects of which the UK is a major part, for example, Airbus, the Joint-Strike Fighter.

4. the Republic of Ireland would be a massive bargaining chip for the UK to play. If the UK left and the EU rump attempted to impose sanctions against Britain this would cripple the RoI because so much of their trade is with the UK The EU would be forced to massively subsidise the RoI if protectionist barriers against the UK were imposed. The EU could not exempt the RoI from the sanctions because that would leave the EU open to British exports being funnelled through the RoI.

5. The EU would be bound by the World Trade Organisation’s restrictions on protectionist measures.

The economic issues which are not worth pursuing in detail because they are too diffuse and uncertain , are those relating to how much the EU costs Britain in terms of EU-inspired legislation. It may well be that these load billions a year of extra costs onto the UK but they are not certain or easily evaluated costs, not least because we cannot in the nature of things know what burdens an independent UK would impose off its own bat. Getting into detailed discussions about such things will simply play into the hands of the stay-in camp because it will eat up the time and space available to those promoting the OUT cause.

Other Issues

Apart from the economic issues the stay-in camp will use these reasons for staying in:

- That the EU has prevented war in Western Europe since 1945. This can be simply refuted by pointing out that the EU was not formed until twelve years after WW2; that until 1973 the EU consisted of only six countries, three of them small, and of only nine countries until the 1980s. Consequently it would be reasonable to look for other reasons for the lack of war. The two causes of the peace in Western Europe have been the NATO alliance and the invention of nuclear weapons which make the price of war extraordinarily high.

- That nation states such as the UK are too small to carry any real diplomatic weight in modern world. That begs the question of whether it is an advantageous thing to carry such weight – it can get a country into disastrous foreign entanglements such as Iraq and Afghanistan – but even assuming it is advantageous , many much smaller countries than the UK survive very nicely, making their own bilateral agreements with other states large and small. It is also worth remembering that the UK has such levers as a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (which allows the UK to veto any proposed move by the UN) and considerable influence in institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

Robert Henderson

1 April 2013

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means, Economics, Europe, Politics | Tagged internationalism, law, nationhood, patriotism, political correctness, quislings | Comments (1)

Piers Morgan’s illegal receipt of information from the police, his perjury and Operation Elveden part III

March 25, 2013 – 7:34 am

ELVEDENFriday, 22 March, 2013 10:51

From: “Paulette.Rooke@met.pnn.police.uk” <paulette.rooke@met.pnn.police.uk>Add sender to ContactsTo: anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk

Mr Henderson

I have been asked by my Inspector to ascertain if you have any new evidence with regard to your allegations against those mentioned in your correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Paulette Rooke

ADS PAULETTE ROOKE

JUBILEE HOUSE PUTNEY, 230-232 PUTNEY BRIDGE RD, London SW15 2PD

Internal 58526 External 020 8785 8526

————————————————————————————————————–

DC Paulette Rooke

Operation Eleveden

Metropolitan Police

New Scotland Yard

8/10 The Broadway

London SW1H OBG

John Whittingdale MP

George Eustice MP

John Whittingdale MP

George Eustice MP

Gerald Howarth MP

Keir Starmer (DPP)

mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk

24 March 2013

Dear DC Rooke,

You ask in your email of 22 March whether I have any new information relating to the accusations I have made. The short answer is no. However, having listened again to the tape recording I made of my interview with Det Supt Jeff Curtis I shall be sending you a copy of that for the reasons given below in paragraph 4.

Happily you do not need any further information to begin investigations into Piers Morgan, Jeff Edwards and Det Supt Jeff Curtis. In fact, I think any disinterested third party would be rather surprised that the investigations have not already begun, bearing in mind that you have a letter sent to Morgan to the PCC in which he admitted that the Mirror had received information from a police officer in circumstances which can only have been illegal.

The reason the crimes (apart from the accusations of perjury before Leveson) were not meaningfully investigated when I made my original complaints is beautifully simple: corrupt practice by the police prompted either by the Blairs’ involvement in the story and/or a known or suspected corrupt relationship between Metropolitan Police officers and the Mirror (and other press and broadcasters).

The corrupt nature of the way my complaints were handled is exemplified by Jeff Curtis’ failure to interview anyone at the Mirror even though he had the letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC. Curtis told me this in a phone call and you can verify that this is the truth by looking at the original case notes. The tape recording of my meeting with Jeff Curtis is important because in it he says he will be going to the Mirror, says the case revolves around Morgan’s admission and says it is a straightforward case. The recording was made with Curtis’ knowledge and agreement. The fact that he knew he was being recorded is significant because it removed the possibility from his mind of saying something to me thinking he could deny it later. Clearly something irregular happened between him leaving me and starting the investigation. It is reasonable to suspect he was leant on by someone even more senior not to investigate the Mirror. That the police never interviewed anyone at the Mirror also means that the Mirror accounts and the journalistic records kept by Edwards and Morgan (and perhaps others) were never scrutinised for evidence of payments to the police. All in all, this is a very obvious perversion of the course of justice.

The events to which the these crimes relate are 15 years old, but that is irrelevant to whether they should be investigated now, both because of the serious nature of the crimes and the fact that those I allege against Morgan and Edwards were not investigated meaningfully when they were first reported. Nor is there any problem with a lack of compelling evidence because of the time which has elapsed. In the case of Morgan and Edwards you have Morgan’s letter to the PCC and the Mirror story, while Curtis’ perversion of the course of justice speaks for itself. Moreover, although it is 15 years since the events, the age of fully computerised accounts had arrived before 1997 and it is probable that a copy of the Mirror accounts for the period is still held in digital form. The same could apply to journalistic records held by Morgan and Edwards or other Mirror employees or freelances. I know from my use of the Data Protection Act soon after the Mirror published the story that the paper was holding information about me which they refused to release under the journalistic purposes provision of the DPA. They may well be still holding it.

As for the perjury accusations against Morgan and Edwards, these are very recent complaints about crimes recently committed which have never been previously investigated. You have the information you need to investigate the perjury because I have supplied you with the Morgan letter to the PCC, the Mirror story about me and the transcripts of the relevant passages in the evidence given by Morgan and Edwards before Leveson.

Apart from the killer fact of Curtis’ failure to interview anyone at the Mirror and a consequent failure to investigate the Mirror’s records, the circumstances of that failed investigation and of other complaints I made at the same time provide very strong circumstantial evidence that my original complaints against Morgan and Edwards were not treated normally. For example, why was a Det Supt from Scotland Yard investigating crimes which would normally be investigated by a Det Sergeant or just possibly a Det Inspector? To that you can add the array of senior police officers (the details of which I sent to you in my email of 29^th January) who became involved in my various complaints at one time or another, despite the crimes being of a nature which would normally have been investigated by policemen of lesser rank. The only reasonable explanation for their involvement is the political circumstances surrounding my complaints.

There are two scenarios which fit the receipt of information by the Mirror from the police. The first is straightforward: a police officer, possibly of senior rank because of the Blairs’ involvement, has sold the information to the Mirror for mere personal gain.

The second scenario is more complex. It involves a senior police officer engaging in a conspiracy with Tony and Cherry Blair assisted by Alastair Campbell to feed misinformation to the Mirror. This is more than a little plausible because the Mirror story was a farrago of grotesque lies such as the claim that I had bombarded the Blairs with letters or that the letters were “full of graphic racist filth”. There was also a completely fabricated quote “if he gets elected he’ll let in all the blacks and Asians”. Ask yourself why the Mirror would have printed such things if they had read my letters after they were given them by a police officer simply out to make money with no political axe to grind. It would not make sense. If, on the other hand, this was all part of a conspiracy between the Blairs, a senior police officer and Alastair Campbell it would make perfect sense, because then it transmutes from a political story into an exercise in political propaganda to nullify me by smearing. The story would then be whatever they wanted it to be with the content of the letters an irrelevance.

It is noteworthy that Morgan in his letter to the PCC admits that the Mirror did not have copies of my letters and that he had not seen them. That could mean one of four things: the Mirror did not have copies, the Mirror had copies but did not wish to admit it because they knew the letters would not substantiate their printed story about me, Edwards had seen the letters but realised they were innocuous and not the basis for a smear story or no one at the Mirror had ever seen my letters but had written their story simply from false information given to them by the police informant. The last possibility fits in most neatly with the conspiracy theory.

Why would the Blairs wish to engage in such a conspiracy? The most plausible answer lies in the fact that they did not go to the police when I wrote to them, but only later after I had sent copies of my letters to the Blairs and the non-replies I was receiving from their offices to every mainstream media outlet at the beginning of the 1997 General Election campaign. That can only mean the Blairs wanted to silence me during the election campaign. Why? Only they can tell you that for sure. What is certain is that the Blairs must have been very seriously worried about the media taking up the story told in my letters and their non-replies to get involved with a criminal investigation during the most important weeks of Blair’s life, namely, the General Election campaign. Having miserably failed in the attempt to have me prosecuted it would have made perfect sense from their point of view to try to neutralise me by getting a friendly media outlet to print a false and hideously libellous story about me to dissuade anyone in the media from taking up the story told in my letters to the Blairs and their non-replies to me.

Here is something for you and your superiors to think upon. If the Met refuses to properly investigate my complaints (including questioning Morgan and Edwards) it will look like yet another cover-up to go along with the persistent failure by the Met to investigate phone-hacking until political pressure forced them to re-investigate cases which had previously been deemed to provide insufficient evidence for a prosecution or even a sustained investigation. The re-investigation of these supposedly hopeless cases has resulted in dozens of arrests and quite a few charges, a fact which tells its own tale.

I repeat my previous requests for an interview with you and a senior officer within Operation Elveden, preferably Steve Kavanagh . Apart from anything else you should be taking a formal statement from me based on the very strong evidence I have provided.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

Tape recording of my interview with Jeff Curtis has been sent to you

Tuesday, 26 March, 2013 7:05

From:

“robert henderson” <anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk>

View contact details

To:

“Paulette Rooke” <Paulette.Rooke@met.pnn.police.uk>

DC Paulette Rooke

Operation Eleveden

Metropolitan Police

New Scotland Yard

8/10 The Broadway

London SW1H OBG

26 3 2013

Dear DC Rooke,

I have posted a copy of the tape recording of my interview on 8 April 1999 with Det Supt Jeff Curtis to you by recorded delivery. I have sent the tape to JUBILEE HOUSE PUTNEY, 230-232 PUTNEY BRIDGE RD, London SW15 2PD which is where you appear to be physically stationed.

Only one side of the tape has been used. You will need to listen to the entire tape, but Jeff Cutris’ comments about going to the Mirror, it being a straightforward case and so on are towards the end of the meeting with around 5/6ths of the tape played.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Politics, The Scandalous Blairs | Tagged censorship, free speech, law, Leveson Inquiry, media, Tony Blair | Comments (1)

Press regulation and the British constitution

March 18, 2013 – 10:39 pm

Robert Henderson

The proposed regulation

The considerable constitutional implications of the proposed regulation of the press by Royal Charter with statutory restraints preventing the Charter’s change and legislation creating different classes of plaintiff in civil cases seems to have passed our politicians by.

The proposal is for the normal ultimate control of a Royal Charter by politicians working through the Privy Council to be circumscribed by a clause in a statute. In addition, further legislation to allow exemplary damages and costs. will be needed. To demonstrate why this raises constitutional difficulties it is necessary to first understand what the proposed system will be and do. That requires a detailed examination of the draft Royal Charter.

The Royal Charter

There have been three draft Royal Charters: the original Tory Charter, the Labour/Libdem Charter and the third and latest which is the draft (published on 18th march) containing the agreed text by all three major party leaders. The 18th March Charter can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142789/18_March_2013_Royal_Charter_on_self-regulation_of_the_press__for_publication_.pdf. A commentary on and full text of the previous draft Royal Charters produced by the Tories and the combined efforts of the Labour and the LibDems can be found at http://martinbelam.com/2013/royal-charter-diffs/.

The statutory underpinning

The statutory underpinning will be, according to the BBC, a general instruction for all new Royal Charters after a certain date in 2013, viz:

“Early on Monday a deal was struck, under which a clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill would be tabled in the Lords.

This would state that a royal charter cannot be changed unless it meets requirements stated within that charter for amendments.

It does not mention any specific charter, Leveson or the press – but the royal charter on press regulation would itself state that it cannot be amended without a two-thirds majority of Parliament. “(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21825823)

This statutory underpinning is intended to give absolute force to these provisions in the 18^th March Royal Charter:

“9.2. Before any proposal (made by any person) to add to, supplement, vary or omit (in whole or in part) a provision of this Charter (“proposed change”) can take effect a draft of the proposed change must have been laid before Parliament, and approved by a resolution of each House. For this purpose “approved” means that at least two-thirds of the members of the House in question who vote on the motion do so in support of it.

9.3. The Recognition Panel may only propose a change to the terms of this Charter if a resolution has been passed unanimously by all of the Members of the Board, who shall determine the matter at a meeting duly convened for that purpose.

10.1. This Charter, and the Recognition Panel created by it, shall not be dissolved unless information about the proposed dissolution has been presented to Parliament, and that proposal has been approved by a resolution of each House. For this purpose “approved” means that at least two-thirds of the members of the House in question who vote on the motion do so in support of it.”

The power to take or refuse complaints

The 18^th March draft Charter gives the proposed press regulator the power to take or refuse complaints as follows:

Schedule 3

“11. The Board should have the power to hear and decide on complaints about breach of the standards code by those who subscribe. The Board will need to have the discretion not to look into complaints if they feel that the complaint is without justification, is an attempt to argue a point of opinion rather than a standards code breach, or is simply an attempt to lobby. The Board should have the power (but not necessarily the duty) to hear complaints:

a) from anyone personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the standards code, or

b) where there is an alleged breach of the code and there is public interest in the Board giving consideration to the complaint from a representative group affected by the alleged breach, or

c) from a third party seeking to ensure accuracy of published information.”

This gives both a very wide range of complainant and much subjective discretionary power to the Regulator.

The power to impose penalties

The penalties and procedures which the Regulator has to punish and enforce its judgements by the 18^th March Charter are:

“15. In relation to complaints, where a negotiated outcome between a complainant and a subscriber (pursuant to criterion 10) has failed, the Board should have the power to direct appropriate remedial action for breach of standards and the publication of corrections and apologies. Although remedies are essentially about correcting the record for individuals, the power to direct a correction and an apology must apply equally in relation to:

a. individual standards breaches; and

b. groups of people as defined in criterion 11 where there is no single identifiable individual who has been affected; and

c. matters of fact where there is no single identifiable individual who has been affected.

16. In the event of no agreement between a complainant and a subscriber (pursuant to criterion 10), the power to direct the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies should lie with the Board.

17. The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, at any time although (in its discretion) it should be able to offer a service of advice to editors of subscribing publications relating to code compliance.

18. The Board, being an independent self-regulatory body, should have authority to examine issues on its own initiative and have sufficient powers to carry out investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches of the code and failures to comply with directions of the Board. The investigations process must be simple and credible and those who subscribe must be required to cooperate with any such investigation.

19. The Board should have the power to impose appropriate and proportionate sanctions (including but not limited to financial sanctions up to 1% of turnover attributable to the publication concerned with a maximum of £1,000,000) on any subscriber found to be responsible for serious or systemic breaches of the standards code or governance requirements of the body. The Board should have sufficient powers to require appropriate information from subscribers in order to ascertain the turnover that is attributable to a publication irrespective of any particular accounting arrangements of the publication or subscriber. The sanctions that should be available should include power to require publication of corrections, if the breaches relate to accuracy, or apologies if the breaches relate to other provisions of the code.

19A.The Board should establish a ring-fenced enforcement fund, into which receipts from financial sanctions could be paid, for the purpose of funding investigations.”

These powers are considerable and the fines could cause genuine financial difficulty to lesser players in the press field because fines are on turnover not profit. The risk is severe because of the immensely broad definition of a publisher who is not a broadcaster:

Schedule 4 b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

i. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or

ii. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);

The recklessly broad definition will almost certainly make the system next to unworkable if the Regulator is genuinely to take complaints from both third parties and complaints about everything from a blog run by a private individual to the largest circulation daily. The experience of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is instructive with the ICO regularly taking one to two years to complete investigations.

The penalties for not being registered with the Regulator

The proposal is that any publisher (as defined by the Royal Charter) who does not sign up with the new regulator will leave themselves open to exemplary damages plus costs if sued successfully in the courts and may be liable for costs even if they successfully defend a suit in certain circumstances.

These penalties are not part of the Royal Charter or the statutory underpinning already described. Consequently further legislation will be required. This will be direct statutory control of the press no matter how much politicians try to fudge the matter. How far such law would be subject to successful legal challenge is debatable because the Human Rights Act contains this:

“Article 10 Freedom of expression.

1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.” (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42)

The constitutional issues

If the Charter cannot be amended or dissolved with less than a two-thirds majority of both houses of Parliament because a statute has been passed forbidding it, this is an attempt at a de facto superior law, a law moreover, which is binding on future governments. As the two thirds majority would be extremely difficult to achieve, it would in effect sabotage the constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successors by passing laws which cannot be repealed. This is even the case with treaties emanating from the EU. All the major British parties have at one time or another maintained that Parliament is sovereign and the treaties and legislation resulting from Britain’s membership of first the European Economic Community and its successor the European Union could be nullified by Parliament’s repeal of laws and repudiation of treaties.

Unless a formal framework for such a superior law is introduced into our Constitution, the present attempt would fail because the restrictions on change or repeal supposedly created by the statutory underpinning could be overcome simply by repealing the entire law in which the statutory restrictions are enshrined. That would apply even if a separate Act was passed dealing solely with restricting changes to the Charter or its abolition. This is so because there could be no such restriction under present circumstances on repealing an entire statute because all statutes are equal and subject to repeal by simple majorities in the two houses of Parliament. In passing it is worth noting that the legislation to make the early calling of general elections difficult suffers from the same insecurity of application because it requires more than a simple majority.

The next problem is the clash between the general rules governing amendments to Royal Charters and the proposed restrictions imposed by statute:

…once incorporated by Royal Charter a body surrenders significant aspects of the control of its internal affairs to the Privy Council. Amendments to Charters can be made only with the agreement of The Queen in Council, and amendments to the body’s by-laws require the approval of the Council (though not normally of Her Majesty). This effectively means a significant degree of Government regulation of the affairs of the body, and the Privy Council will therefore wish to be satisfied that such regulation accords with public policy. (http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/chartered-bodies/).

And

(d) incorporation by Charter is a form of Government regulation as future amendments to the Charter and by-laws of the body require Privy Council (ie Government) approval. There therefore needs to be a convincing case that it would be in the public interest to regulate the body in this way; (http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/applying-for-a-royal-charter/)

The Privy Council practices come into direct opposition with the draft Royal Charter where it touches on amendments to or dissolution of the Charter. It is important to understand that if granted the Royal Charter will not be an artefact of Parliament. Technically it will be a Royal artefact although in reality a government artefact. It might be thought that Parliament being sovereign could override the Privy Council procedures, but it is not as simple as that. The Privy Council procedures are separate from Parliament. If Parliament wants them to be subordinate to Parliament that would make Royal Charters in effect artefacts of Parliament in the same way that secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council are semi-detached artefacts of Parliament.

The third and last difficulty is the fact that the proposed Charter would create a quasi-judicial authority (I think that that would make it unique amongst Royal Charters). That quasi-judicial function would leave it open to legal challenge, both at the level of the Recognition Panel (RP) which appoints the regulator and the regulator itself . Because there is statutory underpinning of both the RP and the regulator and the RP is in receipt of public funds at least in the early years, it might well be that either body could be subject to judicial review because either could be deemed a public body and a regulatory body established by statute (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review).

The other objection to the quasi-judicial status created by the proposed regulatory system is the fact that quasi-judicial powers (and very considerable ones) are being granted by a body other than Parliament .

The likely outcome

The proposals are a cynical ploy to prepare the ground for serious interference with the traditional press and the broader internet media because of the breadth of the definition of a publisher. These are proposals which are incompatible with any society that calls itself free or has pretensions to be a democracy because by definition anything may be debated in a democracy.

The intended consequences of the proposals are clearly to manipulate the press and internet media both in instances of actual publication and through the deterrent effect of the possible consequences which publication of a story will bring. Moreover, anyone who believes that this will be the end of political interference with the press and internet publishers is credulous to the point of imbecility. Once state regulation of any degree becomes the status quo it will provide the psychological launching pad for further control. This will be difficult to argue against because the pass on press freedom will already have been sold.

The fact of such an agreement amongst the leadership of all our major parties is profoundly depressing because it means not one of them collectively understands the value of free expression as a cleansing lotion for immoral behaviour, especially that by the powerful and influential. To that is added the contemptible portrayal of the proposed scheme by the major parties as anything but what it is, namely, grubby authoritarianism.

None of that is to say that those abused by the press do not require protection. A statutory right of reply (RoR) would do what was required without any chance of political interference. This is because it is a self-organising process which would involve only the newspaper and the complainant or, where an RoR was refused, the courts to enforce it. The involvement of the courts would not require the courts to make a judgement on what the publication had written or what the subject of their story wanted to say in reply. All the court would be doing is forcing the publication to provide the RoR. The detailed arguments for an RoR can be found at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/curing-media-abuse-a-statutory-right-to-reply-is-needed/.

Is all lost? Happily there is some hope. That exists not because there is likely to be any turnabout out of principle by our politicians. Rather, it exists because they have, as so very often, not thought through the consequences of a policy. Apart from the constitutional difficulties, the practical difficulties are huge. The great breadth of the definition of what is a publisher will potentially make the work of the Regulator impossible simply because they will be overwhelmed with work.

In addition, there will be endless opportunity for the wealthier subscribers to the Regulator to pursue legal challenges to the rulings of the Regulator, not least because as I have described the legal position of the Regulator and the RP is a dog’s dinner.

Finally, there is the question of whether the big press publishers will all sign up, even though that will protect them from exemplary damages and costs even if they have won a case in the courts. There are signs that some at least might well refuse. If many refused that would kill the proposals stone dead. But even if they all signed up they could sabotage the intentions of the Royal Charter by engaging in a barrage of legal actions against the Regulator.

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Politics, The willing censor | Tagged authoritarianism, censorship, Constitution, free speech, law, Leveson Inquiry | Comments (1)

The Financial Times goes after The Daily Mirror

March 9, 2013 – 10:04 pm

Dear Robert

I hope you don’t mind me emailing you directly.

I am writing about phone hacking on behalf of the FT and investigating wider incidences of press abuse at other newspapers such as Trinity Mirror.

I would be keen to meet with you as I understand from one of my contacts that you may have evidence of wider press abuse.

Do let me know if you would be happy to meet. I am happy to discuss matters on background only.

All best

Rob

– Rob Budden Chief Media Correspondent Financial Times +44 (0) 207 775 6839 +44 (0) 7785 952 688 www.ft.com

Follow me on Twitter: @RobertoBud

————————————————————————————————————-

Rob Budden

Chief Media Correspondent

Financial Times

1 Southwark Bridge,

London SE1 9HL

Tel: 0207 775 6839

Email: rob.budden@ft.com

9 March 2013

Dear Rob,

As promised at our meeting of 8th March, I send you additional information relating to Piers Morgan, the Blairs, the police, the Leveson Inquiry and myself. The details of the new material and the material I supplied to you when we met are listed below.

If you want to expose Trinity Mirror I have provided you with all the evidence you need to demonstrate their abuse of members of the public, the committing of criminal acts through the receipt of information from the police illegally by the Mirror, probable perjury before Leveson by Morgan and Jeff Edwards and the wilful suppression of evidence by the police of police supplying information illegally to the Mirror. In addition, you have the wider story of the Blairs attempting to prosecute me for crimes they must have known were bogus and their subsequently use of the security services and Special Branch to harass me.

Please keep these facts firmly in front of you:

1. There was so little substance to the Blairs’ complaints against me that the police never contacted me about them, while the CPS rejected the complaint within hours of receiving it with a firm “No Crime”.

2. The Blairs did not go to the police when I sent them the letters, but only after I had circulated copies of my letters to them and the replies I received at the beginning of the 1997 General Election Campaign.

3. The Blairs failed to take any civil law action against me even though that has only the balance of probability evidential test.

4. At no time did I threaten directly or by implication either of the Blairs, nor did I ever attempt to physically approach them.

5. Despite being deemed innocent of any crime and despite never having threatened either of the Blairs, Special Branch and MI5 were set upon me.

6. I made various complaints to the police relating to the Mirror and the Blairs. None were meaningfully investigated. The most blatant example was the failure of Det Supt Jeff Curtis of Scotland Yard to claim that he had investigated my complaint relating to the Piers Morgan admission of receiving information from the police without interviewing anyone at the Mirror or looking at their accounts for evidence of payments to the police.

7. The harassment I suffered after the Blairs failed to have me investigated in March 1997 lasted for the entire Blair premiership and ended once he was out of office.

If you want me to write an article for the FT on any aspect of the business I shall be happy to do so.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

—————————————————————————————————

Schedule of documents supplied to Rob Budden

At our meeting on 8^th March I supplied you with the following in paper form:

1. A copy of Is it in the blood? as it was printed.

2. Copies of the Mirror and Daily Herald stories relating to the Blairs and me dated 25 3 1997.

3. A copy of Piers Morgan’s letter to the PCC dated 16 October 1997 in which he admits to receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal.

4. Copies of the correspondence between the PCC and Mike Jempson of Presswise on my behalf relating to my complaints against the Mirror and Daily Herald following the stories of 25 3 1997.

5. A copy of Sir Richard Body’s EDM of detailing the harassment I was subject to after the Blairs’ attempt to have me prosecuted during the 1997 General Election campaign failed.

Copies of documents supplied 9 3 2013 via email in digital form (Wordfile)

1. The version of the Wisden Cricket Monthly article Is it in the blood? as I sent it to David Frith with supporting documents – see wordfile IsitinthebloodFT.docx

2. My initial submission to the Leveson Inquiry including original attachments (sent by separate email).

3. Details of Piers Morgan’s perjury before Leveson - see wordfile piersmorganperjury.docx

4. Details of Jeff Edwards perjury before Leveson – see wordfile jeffedwardsperjury.docx

5. File relating to Robert Jay’s inept questioning – see wordfile LevesonRobertJay.docx

6. My complaints to Operation Elveden regarding Morgan and Edwards’ receipt of information about me illicitly supplied by the police to the Mirror and Morgan and Edwards – see wordfile OperationElvedensubmissionFT.docx

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in The Scandalous Blairs | Tagged censorship, free speech, law, Leveson Inquiry, media | Comments (0)

The Letwin Plan – Freedom of the Press in a post-Leveson UK

March 2, 2013 – 10:37 pm

The Letwin Plan – Freedom of the Press in a post-Leveson UK

Freedom Association meeting 25 February

Speakers

John Whittingdale MP (Chairman of the DCMS select committee).

George Eustice MP

Harry Cole Blogger

Depressingly John Whittingdale and George Eustice are both wholeheartedly in favour of the Letwin Plan which is the Government’s response to Leveson’s proposals. I say depressingly because the Plan is dishonest in overt intent because it produces a system of regulation which pretends to be independent but is in reality authoritarian.

The proposed structure of the new system of regulation consists of a Recognition Panel (RP) which licences a Regulator, the relationship between the two being broadly akin to that of Ofcom licensing broadcasters, although here there will be three tiers of interested parties - the RP, the regulator and the press – rather than two.

The RP will carry out an assessment of the work of the Regulator every three year. However, in exceptional circumstances an inspection can be made when deemed necessary. The Regulator will have the power to levy substantial fines , viz:

15. 19. The Board should have the power to impose appropriate and proportionate sanctions(including but not limited to financial sanctions up to 1% of turnover of the publication concerned with a maximum of £1,000,000) on any subscriber found to be responsible for serious or systemic breaches of the standards code or governance requirements of the body.

The possible size of fines could have an excessive intimidatory effect, especially on publications which have relatively small publications.

The regulatory structure is to derive its legitimacy from a Royal Charter rather than a statute (The full draft Charter can be found at http://tinyurl.com/Draft-Royal-Charter-for-Press). This supposedly gives it independence from politician. Apart from being the thin end of the wedge to more extreme regulation, the personnel of the RP will be drawn from the usual cast list of the Great and the Good and, in the cases of both the RP and the Regulator, there will not be an outright ban on people with a media background , merely restrictions on serving mediafolk or their numbers. The funding of the RP will come from the fees charged to those applying to be Regulators with top ups from the taxpayer if required (the taxpayer will fund the first three years). The Regulator’s income will come from subscriptions and fines levied from subscribers found to be misbehaving.

The dishonesty continues with the claim that signing up to the new regulator will be a voluntary choice for the press. It will give a very strange meaning to the word voluntary, because those who choose not to sign up will leave themselves open to punitive damages in the courts whereas those who do sign up will be legally protected against such damages. This legal protection will require legislation.

During questions I pointed out the dishonesty and said that if the government was going to be authoritarian it was better if it was honest about what it was doing, because this type of pretence was precisely what was disillusioning the general public when it came to politics. Another questioner made the pertinent point that two classes of plaintiffs would exist. There would be those suing subscribers to the Regulator (who would be protected against punitive damages) and those suing newspapers who had not signed up with the regulator who would be liable for punitive damages. This could have the perverse consequence of allowing two plaintiffs with equal cases being awarded substantially different amounts in damages , or even worse, a less serious instance of press misbehaviour resulting in higher damages than a more serious instance. It could also have a seriously intimidatory effect on the smaller publishers.

The general problem with the Letwin Plan as outlined in the draft Royal Charter is the structural complexity of the system. The RP will have an appointments committee which creates an executive board licenses the Regulator which also has an appointment panel to create an executive board for the regulator. The Regulator then has to set up a Code committee to develop the Code of Conduct. This type of diffuse relationship is a recipe for buck passing.

Harry Cole was against the plan because the use of a Royal Charter brought with it difficulties of its own, most notably the fact that an amendment to a Charter required a two thirds majority of the Commons, as opposed to a simple majority to repeal or amend a statute. The draft Charter does indeed state this, viz:

9. CHARTER AMENDMENT

9.1. The Recognition Panel may add to, vary or omit (in whole or in part) any of the provisions of this Charter if, and only if:

a) a resolution has been passed unanimously by all of the Members of the Recognition Panel, who shall determine the matter at a meeting duly convened for that purpose;

and

b) the requirements of Article 9.2 are met.

9.2. Before any proposal to add to, vary or omit (in whole or in part) a provision of this Charter (“proposed change”) can take effect:

a) the leaders of the three main political parties in the House of Commons (being the parties with the first, second and third greatest numbers of Members of Parliament at the relevant time) must each confirm in writing to the Chair of the Board that he agrees to the proposed change;

and

b) a draft of the proposed change must have been laid before Parliament, and approved by a resolution of each House. For this purpose “approved” means that at least two-thirds of the members of the House in question who vote on the motion do so in support of it. (http://tinyurl.com/Draft-Royal-Charter-for-Press)

Similar qualifications apply to the dissolution of the Charter – see 10. DISSOLUTION10.1

These Charter provisions would, if valid, make the alteration or the dissolution of the Charter very difficult – the procedures have to be initiated by a unanimous resolution of the Recognition Panel and before any change can be put to Parliament (both houses) the leaders of the three largest parties in the Commons have to each agree to either a Charter change or dissolution of the Charter. However, there is a rather large question mark over whether they are valid. Here are the general rules governing amendments to Royal Charters:

…once incorporated by Royal Charter a body surrenders significant aspects of the control of its internal affairs to the Privy Council. Amendments to Charters can be made only with the agreement of The Queen in Council, and amendments to the body’s by-laws require the approval of the Council (though not normally of Her Majesty). This effectively means a significant degree of Government regulation of the affairs of the body, and the Privy Council will therefore wish to be satisfied that such regulation accords with public policy. (http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/chartered-bodies/).

And

(d) incorporation by Charter is a form of Government regulation as future amendments to the Charter and by-laws of the body require Privy Council (ie Government) approval. There therefore needs to be a convincing case that it would be in the public interest to regulate the body in this way; (http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/applying-for-a-royal-charter/)

The Privy Council practices appear to come into direct opposition with the draft Royal Charter where it touches on amendments to or dissolution of the Charter. It is important to understand that if granted the Royal Charter will not be an artefact of Parliament. Technically it will be a Royal artefact, although in reality a government artefact. It might be thought that Parliament being sovereign could override the Privy Council procedures, but it is not as simple as that. The Privy Council procedures are separate from Parliament. If Parliament wanted them to be subordinate to Parliament that would mean a redrawing of the Constitution, something which has can have wide ramifications, as was show all to starkly by the last Labour government’s botched attempt at ending of the post of Lord Chancellor.

The problems do no end there. Reading through the draft Royal Charter there is a distinct whiff of the PCC about the set up. For example, take the parameters of the Code of Conduct:

15 7. The standards code must ultimately be adopted by the Board, and be written by a Code Committee which is comprised of both independent members and servingeditors.8. The code must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public (including but not limited to the public interest in detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety, protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from being seriously misled), the need for journalists to protect confidential sources of information, and the rights of individuals. Specifically, it must cover standards of:

a) conduct, especially in relation to the treatment of other people in the process of obtaining material;

b) appropriate respect for privacy where there is no sufficient public interest justification for breach; and

c) accuracy, and the need to avoid misrepresentation.

The likely code of Conduct will be one close that of the PCC Code , which apart from being frequently not applied by the PCC also gave plenty of wriggle room, especially when the question of the public interest was raised.

None of the panellists suggested that rather than having this great regulatory edifice a statutory right of reply (RoR) would do what was required without any chance of political interference. This is because it is a self-organising process which would involve only the newspaper and the complainant or, where an RoR was refused, the courts. Consequently I did. John Whittingdale tried to dismiss the idea by saying it would be unworkable because of the number of people asking to reply would be vast. I pointed out that this would not be a problem if the RoR was restricted to a reasonable length.

I also suggested that claims for financial redress by those abused by the press should be dealt with through the Small Claims courts with no right of appeal from the Small Court’s verdict and no lawyers allowed, that is, just the lay plaintiff confronting the lay representative of the newspaper involved. Again this met with a blank lack of interest by the two MPs. The Small Claims court could also deal with refusals of a newspaper to publish an RoR.

Had I been given the time I would also have raised the problem of how the Regulator would possibly be able to handle the likely number of complainants. In this context the Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) can give some idea of the difficulties which are likely to arise. A complaint under either the Freedom of Information or the Data Protection Acts to the ICO is likely to take a year or more to gain an adjudication despite the fact that the IFO employs several hundred people. You can bet your life that the proposed Regulator will not employ hundreds of people because the funding of the Regulator will come from the subscribing newspapers . The difficulty of the numbers complaining vastly exceeding the resources available is exacerbated by the allowing of third party complaints:

15.11. The Board should have the power to hear and decide on complaints about breach of the standards code by those who subscribe. The Board should have the power (but not necessarily the duty) to hear complaints: a) from anyone personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the standards code, or b) where an alleged breach of the code is significant and there is substantial public interest in the Board giving formal consideration to the complaint, from are presentative group affected by the alleged breach, or c) from a third party seeking to ensure accuracy of published information.

Third party complaints also raise the problem of subjectivity by the Regulator, whose board members, being human, are likely to favour complaints which fit with their political sympathies whilst discriminating against those of which they disapprove.

In short, the proposed regulatory regime is, apart from being the thin end of the wedge for state control of the press, dishonest in intent, constitutionally unsound and administratively impractical .

During the course of the meeting I raised (1) the failure of Leveson to use the letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC in which he admitted receiving information from the police in circumstances which could only have been illegal and (2) Morgan’s subsequent perjury when giving evidence before Leveson under oath. I offered these as examples of the failure of Leveson to pursue cast iron evidence of serious media misbehaviour. Harry Cole expressed an interest and asked for a copy of the letter which I subsequently supplied.

After the meeting I spoke with John Whittingdale about Leveson and he was very loth indeed to discuss the matter. I eventually persuaded him to take a copy of the Morgan letter from me, although it was with the look of a man picking up a live grenade with the pin pulled out. When he had read the letter he said, believe or not, that he did not think it worth pursuing because it was 15 years old. I pointed out that crimes were frequently pursued after such a time, for example, the Savile investigations , while some of the phone hacking accusations were over ten years old. I also pointed out that the only reason my complaints were not investigated at the time was the police failure to meaningfully investigate. Mr Whittingdale left taking a copy of the Morgan letter with him.

Robert Henderson 2 March 2013

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in The Scandalous Blairs | Tagged censorship, media, Press | Comments (0)

Curing media abuse – A statutory right to reply is needed

February 25, 2013 – 11:27 pm

Robert Henderson

A statutory right of reply (RoR) is the thing of media nightmares. That alone tells you it is the best remedy for the general public. But the media is looking a gift horse in the mouth because an RoR would provide the strongest bulwark against any government desire to regulate the media. If there is a truly effective means of rapid redress available to everyone, including incidentally politicians, the prime argument for outside regulation is removed.

An RoR is also the perfect practical solution to the problem of media abuse because it is a self-regulating mechanism, able to develop organically and requiring no great bureaucracy to administer it or vast amounts of money to fuel it.

The only expenditure would be that incurred where an individual challenged the denial of an RoR by a newspaper or broadcaster. That cost could be kept to a minimum in two ways. First, by making libel the only reason for refusing an RoR and then only for that part of a proposed reply which was libellous. Second, by empowering Small Claims Courts to decide whether a claimed libel exists and, if the court does not agree that it does, to order the newspaper or broadcaster to publish the disputed reply. To keep things simple, there should be no appeal against the Small Claims Court’s decision.

The other mechanism which would provide redress with little cost would be to extend the powers of the Small Claims Courts to hear complaints against the media for libel and slander and other torts such as trespass. These two measures would ensure that money did not prove a barrier or determinant of ultimate legal success.

How would it work?

I would restrict the right to individuals because corporate bodies should be able to look after themselves through normal legal action.

The qualification for a right to reply would be simple and objective: the media outlet has printed or broadcast material about an individual. Hence, no prior legal decision, other than on possible libel, would be needed before an RoR was enforced.

What should the RoR entail in terms of opportunity? In the case of newspapers I would give a respondent 300 words as an automatic right and another 500 words for every 1000 words published about him or her over 1500 words. The respondent’s reply should be printed on the same page as the story to which they are responding. If the newspaper responds to a reply then the person responded to would get another RoR.

Broadcasting is more problematical, but at the least a written reply by the person criticised could be read out on air. Where the person has the confidence to speak for themselves, they should be allowed to broadcast their reply.

Practical fears

The objections to an RoR are heavy in the imagination but in all probability slight in practice. It is a case for suck-it-and see.

The media will say that it is completely impractical, that their papers and broadcasts would be full of nothing but replies. In fact, we can say with a very high degree of probability that they would not be.

The general experience of the introduction of any new opportunities for the public at large to act upon is that there is an initial burst of activity which soon settles down to a hard core of those willing to make the effort. If by any chance the introduction of a right to reply proved the odd sociological man out and the media was overwhelmed, the system could be reviewed .

A narrow RoR would be worthless

The media will doubtless throw up their hands in horror at the idea of a RoR which is anything other than a narrow one based on correcting inaccuracy. There are two solid reasons why it should not be limited to inaccuracy. The first is that there is often no easy way of proving the truth or otherwise of ostensible “facts” nor any clear distinction between what constitutes accuracy and inaccuracy or a certain definition of what is an objective fact. For example, what is the objective truth of this statement: “Harold was killed by an arrow through his eye at the battle of Hastings” in 1066? We can be more or less certain that the battle took place in 1066, assuming that we do not have a general scepticism about that which we have not personally witnessed, but the nature of Harold’s death is much more uncertain and problematical. If the RoR were restricted to inaccuracy, the media would assuredly use the lack of objective truth and falsity to undermine the RoR by arguing interminably.

The second objection concerns opinion. This is often more damaging than inaccuracy and there is no clear distinction between fact and opinion. Suppose I write of an actress that “she is a whore”. That is a statement of fact which in principle could be tested objectively, that is, does she take money or other material rewards for providing sexual favours? But what if I write “she has the morals of a whore”? Is that fact or opinion? If it is to be treated as fact how could it be tested? Again, the opportunities for argument are limitless.

The effect on the media

The effect of an RoR and small claims court libel access would be profound. Faced with an immediate published response to any inaccuracy or abusive opinion and the possibility of having to submit themselves to public examination in a small claims court, journalists and broadcasters would cease to be cavalier in what they write. An analogy would be with the recording of conversations where everyone in the conversation knows they are being recorded. Where that occurs people generally cease to lie about what was said and are careful about what they say.

The present remedies

Compare an regime such as I have proposed with the present supposed remedies for those criticised or represented by the media. These are both cumbersome and the success of a complaint is dependent upon the judgement of others. In the case of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the judgement is made by people drawn from the media or from those associated in some way with the media, and the organisation is funded by the press. Unsurprisingly, a non-celebrity complainant to the PCC rarely succeeds – in its entire history the PCC has never found for a complainant where to do so would be to tacitly accept that a serious libel had been committed.

But to complain that the PCC is no remedy is to miss a larger point. No matter how formally honest the PCC or any other media regulating body was, it could no more serve the public generally than the legal profession can serve the general public in actions for libel where there is no legal aid. The question is one of practicality.

The numbers of complaints actually considered formally by the PCC and the Broadcasting authorities is minute, running into a few hundred a year – most complaints never get to a full hearing or investigation. If the public began to use these bodies enthusiastically they would be overwhelmed. Short of the Government devoting a large segment of the national budget to funding vast public bodies capable of dealing with tens of thousands of complaints a year, the redress for the public will remain notional and the existence of bodies such as the PCC worse than useless. I say worse than useless because their existence gives a spurious appearance of media misbehaviour being subject to sanctions.

All that adds up to a further powerful argument for an effective RoR. Those within the media who oppose such a thing should consider whether it a lesser evil (from their point of view) than the likely eventual alternative of state-control, either openly or through quasi-independent bodies.

I will leave you with this thought. At present the relationship between someone in the media and anyone they choose to criticise is analogous to someone who binds a man and then punches him. It is not a contest, but an act of cowardice. It is essentially what anyone in the media does when they attack someone outside the media in the certain knowledge that the person will be denied an uncensored opportunity to reply.

By Robert Henderson | Tagged censorship, media, Press | Comments (2)

Piers Morgan’s illegal receipt of information from the police, his perjury and Operation Elveden part II

January 29, 2013 – 10:43 am

DC Paulette Rooke

Operation Eleveden

Metropolitan Police

New Scotland Yard

8/10 The Broadway

London SW1H OBG

(Tel: 0208 )

29 January 2013

CC Gerald Howarth MP

Keir Starmer (DPP)

mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk

Dear DC Rooke,

As we have not been able speak as yet I will try to expedite matters by ensuring that you have the basic details and by describing what I would like to happen.

The crimes committed

The evidence I have supplied leaves Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards with no wriggle room. There is the letter from Morgan to the PCC admitting that he received information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal; Edwards as the writer of the Mirror article must have been the recipient of the information and both Morgan and Edwards objectively committed perjury by denying receiving information from the police illegally whilst under oath before the Leveson Inquiry. Det Supt Curtis is condemned by his wilful refusal to interview Morgan, Edwards or anyone else at the Mirror after my initial complaint. (I have him on tape promising to interview Morgan et al during my initial meeting with him).

The political dimension

The complaints I have submitted to Elveden are part of a larger scandal which has deep political ramifications. The general scope of these can be seen from the Early Day Motion put down on my behalf by Sir Richard Body on 10 November 1999:

CONDUCT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR SEDGEFIELD 10:11:99

Sir Richard Body

That this House regrets that the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield [Tony Blair] attempted to persuade the Metropolitan Police to bring criminal charges against Robert Henderson, concerning the Right honourable Member’s complaints to the police of an offence against the person, malicious letters and racial insult arising from letters Robert Henderson had written to the Right honourable Member complaining about various instances of publicly-reported racism involving the Labour Party; and that, after the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaints of the Right honourable Member and the Right honourable Member failed to take any civil action against Robert Henderson, Special Branch were employed to spy upon Robert Henderson, notwithstanding that Robert Henderson had been officially cleared of any illegal action.

This motion is now part of the official House of Commons record – see http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=16305&SESSION=702

I bring this to your attention because it was the political dimension which prevented me from getting any redress for complaints I made to the police following the publication of the Mirror story. My experience from 1997 to 2007 when Blair retired was of being in a Kafkaesque world in which, despite being subjected to harassment which ranged from death threats and an internet campaign which incited violence against me by posting my address on social media sites to regular interference with my post, I was unable to get the police to investigate meaningfully any of the complaints which arose from the Mirror’s involvement and the harassment which followed. You have a classic example in the failure of Jeff Curtis to investigate the Mirror despite having Morgan’s letter admitting to receiving police information.

That my complaints caused considerable concern to the police because of their political nature can be seen from the number of senior officers who got involved in complaints of crimes, most of which would normally be investigated by a Det Sergeant or a Detective Inspector at most. At various times I dealt with the following:

Det Chief Supt Tony Dawson – The Met’s Internal Investigations Command

Dept Supt Jeff Curtis

Chief Supt John Yates

Chief Supt Eric Brown

Supt Cliff Hughes

Supt Alex Fish

Chief Inspector Julia Wortley

Chief Inspector Ian West

Det Chief Inspector Stephen Kershaw

Despite their involvement no one was ever charged, unsurprising as no complaint was meaningfully investigated. I also met with the same obstruction from the CPS.

Documents passed to Holborn police

The documents I passed to PC G James 423EK and PC L Scully 471EK from Holborn police station were:

1.Piers Morgan’s Letter to the PCC date 16 October 1997 in which he admits receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal.

3. Copies of the then director of Presswise Mike Jempson’s correspondence on my behalf with the PCC relating to the Mirror story dated 23 December 1997, 9 January 1998, 20 January 1998, 18 February 1998, 2 March 1998.

4. My evidence to the Leveson Inquiry of Morgan ’s perjury dated 23 December 2011

5. My evidence to the Leveson Inquiry of Edwards’ perjury dated 25 March 2012

6. My original submission to the Leveson Inquiry dated 25 November 2011

7. Sir Richard Body’s Early Day Motion 10th November 1999 which dealt with the general context of the events surrounding the Mirror story with the role of the Blairs at its heart.

8. A copy of my Wisden Cricket Article Is it in the Blood? (from the July 1995 edition). It was my gross mistreatment by the mainstream British media after the publication of the article that led me ultimately to write to the Blairs asking for their assistance after all other available avenues of redress had failed me .

9. A copy of my final letter to Det Supt Curtis dated 2 December 1999, Det Supt A Bamber’s reply to that letter 13 December 1999 and the PCA’s letter dated November 1999 refusing to investigate further

10. A letter addressed to the new head of Operation Elveden Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh dated 21 January 2013. A copy of this is below.

I attach copies of 1,4,5,6 and my final letter to Jeff Curtis (see 9) in digital form.

What I would like to happen

The first step would be for the two of us to have a long talk about this. Because of the political ramifications I would also like to meet DAC Steve Kavanagh .

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

———————————————————————————————————

Flag this messageOPERATION ELVEDENMonday, 25 February, 2013 11:10

From: “Paulette.Rooke@met.police.uk” <paulette.rooke@met.police.uk>View contact detailsTo: anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk

Mr Henderson

I write out of courtesy just to let you know that I am still looking into your recent correspondence with this office.

I hope that you will receive a reply in the next couple of weeks.

Yours sincerely

Paulette Rooke

DC PAULETTE ROOKE

JUBILEE HOUSE PUTNEY, 230-232 PUTNEY BRIDGE RD, London SW15 2PD

Internal 58526 External 020 8785 8526

Mobile 07771 553043 (office hours)

————————————————————————————————————————————–

DC Paulette Rooke

Operation Eleveden

Metropolitan Police

New Scotland Yard

8/10 The Broadway

London SW1H OBG

John Whittingdale MP

George Eustice MP

Gerald Howarth MP

Keir Starmer (DPP)

mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk

26 February 2013

Dear DC Rooke,

Thank you for your email of 25 February. It is now a month since I passed my complaints to Operation Eleveden. I really do think an early meeting between you, me and a senior officer from Operation Elveden (preferably Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh) would be fruitful.

I have provided Operation Eleveden with conclusive evidence of Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards’ receipt of information illegally from the police and of their perjury before Leveson. Consequently, most of the investigatory work needed to bring charges has been completed. Apart from the admin involved in getting the cases to court, all that remains to be done is to interview Morgan and Edwards and to inspect the Mirror’s records and Morgan and Edwards’ private papers to see if information relating to payments for the information exist. I really cannot see what obstacle there is to proceeding with an investigation.

Morgan will not be able to deny the offence because to do so would put him in the absurd position of saying he had not written the letter, that he had no knowledge of it being sent and that the whole thing was done by someone else. That would be ridiculous if it was just a letter sent without any outside stimulation, but this letter is sent in response to a letter from the PCC. Morgan would have to argue that a correspondence initiated by the PCC had proceeded without his knowledge even though the Mirror side was made in his name.

Even without the letter it would be clear that the police had illegally passed information to the Mirror. Information in the story could only have come from the police. In addition Jeff Edwards’ story contains this: ‘A Scotland Yard source said: “By sending letters in a very unpleasant tone the writer has committed an assault. ’ Special Branch, who organise protection for MPs have been informed of the situation”. Just for the record my letters were deemed entirely legal by the CPS within hours of their receipt. It was a try-on by the Blairs.

I have spoken to Edwards once. That was on the morning of the publication of the Mirror story. When he discovered who he was speaking to he panicked immediately. I think there is a good chance that when confronted with the evidence of Morgan’s letter he will simply come clean. I have never spoken to Morgan, but I would draw your attention to the fact that he has behaved recklessly and dishonestly in the past, most notably in his fabrication of a photos of soldiers when Mirror editor , something which caused his sacking. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/may/14/pressandpublishing.iraqandthemedia). Reckless people tend to be careless and impulsive. Always a plus when an investigation is under way.

My complaint against Det Supt Jeff Curtis is also straightforward. The fact that he did not interview anyone at the Mirror despite having Morgan’s letter to the PCC can be verified by checking the Met’s case notes.

If the Mirror received information from the police illegally in my case, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this was a widespread practice within the Mirror group. Investigate my complaints and you will almost certainly find evidence of other instances. There is also the advantage for the Met in investigating the Mirror because it shows they are not merely concentrating on the Murdoch papers.

I would greatly welcome a meeting in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in The Scandalous Blairs | Tagged censorship, Leveson Inquiry, liberal bigotry, media, police, Tony Blair | Comments (2)

Piers Morgan’s illegal receipt of information from the police, his perjury and Operation Elveden

January 24, 2013 – 9:51 pm

Robert Henderson

On Monday 21 January I went to New Scotland Yard (NSY) with the intention of providing evidence to Operation Elveden of Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards’ receipt of information illegally from the police and their perjury before the Leveson Inquiry when they lied under oath.

I was unable to gain entry. Those on the entrance were insistent that I would have to make an appointment. (I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if I had turned up without an appointment to give, for example, evidence about a murder or terrorist plot: would it have been “Sorry sir, we can’t see you without an appointment”?) I rang from outside the NSY to try and arrange an immediate appointment only to be told by the Met’s central switchboard that no one was available to make the appointment. I left my details and a civilian worker phoned me later in the day and made an appointment for the local police to visit me at 11.00 am on 22 January. He gave me the case reference CAD 3124/2/Jan.

Two uniformed PCs turned up from Holborn police station (I gave them the details, but as they admitted themselves, the case was more than a little out of their normal range of work. (That was precisely why I had gone directly to the NSY rather than ringing to make an appointment. I knew if I tried to make an appointment I would in all probability be directed to my local police station. Some people may think it is a very curious thing that Operation Elveden does not have a direct phone line or public email address for those wishing to give information to use ). In the circumstances I could do no more than run through the details and pass on to the two PCs the following documents:

1.Piers Morgan’s Letter to the PCC date 16 October 1997 in which he admits receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/piers-morgan-lied-to-the-leveson-inquiry/)

2. A copy of the Daily Mirror story about me dated 25 March 1997 which produced the complaint to the PCC which caused Morgan to write the letter in which he admitted receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-failure-to-charge-piers-morgan-with-illicitly-receiving-information-from-the-police/)

4. My evidence to the Leveson Inquiry of Morgan ’s perjury dated 23 December 2011 (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/referral-of-piers-morgans-perjury-to-the-leveson-inquiry/).

5. My evidence to the Leveson Inquiry of Edwards’ perjury dated 25 March 2012 (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/leveson-inquiry-jeff-edwards-and-another-prima-facie-case-of-perjury/).

6. My original submission to the Leveson Inquiry dated 25 November 2011 (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/the-leveson-inquiry-the-blairs-the-mirror-the-police-and-me/)

7. Sir Richard Body’s Early Day Motion 10th November 1999 which dealt with the general context of the events surrounding the Mirror story with the role of the Blairs at its heart. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/when-tony-and-cherie-blair-tried-to-have-me-jailed/)

9. A letter addressed to the new head of Operation Elveden Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh dated 21 January 2013. A copy of this is below.

On the 23 January 2013 I received an email advising me that the information I had given had been forwarded to Operation Elveden and a message was left on my answerphone asking me to contact Operation Elveden on Friday 25 January.

That the two PCs found the matter somewhat daunting is unsurprising as it has a very heavy political loading because of the involvement Tony and Cherie Blair who had attempted to have me prosecuted during the first week of the 1997 General Election campaign under the Malicious Communications Act. So weak was this complaint that, despite the Blairs’ celebrity and Labour’s almost certain win in the election which would make Blair Prime Minister, the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaint with a firm NO CRIME on the same day it was submitted to them by the police for guidance.

I have restricted my complaints to Operation Elveden strictly to that which is within their remit. However, these examples of criminality and misbehaviour by those with power or influence are only a small part of the overall story of the Blair Scandal. My experience from 1997 to 2007 when Blair retired was of being in a Kafkaesque world in which, despite being subjected to harassment which ranged from death threats and an internet campaign which attempted incite violence against me to regular interference with my post, the police did not solve any of the crimes which I referred to them. This was scarcely surprising as they ignored the evidence I provided, no matter how strong it was. The most blatant example of this behaviour was the failure of Det Supt Jeff Curtis of Scotland Yard to question Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards of the Mirror about receiving information illegally from the police even though they had the letter from Morgan admitting he had received information from the police. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Complaints Authority backed up the failure of the police to investigate meaningfully or sufficiently by refusing any complaints of police inactivity which I referred to them.

The complicity of the elite went far beyond crime. The mainstream media engaged in a conspiracy of silence after the publication of the Mirror story, neither allowing me a public voice nor even following up the Mirror story ; The PCC repeatedly failed me; my MP Frank Dobson refused to help in any way, as did institutions such as Liberty and the Index on Censorship. If I went to lawyers they would blanche as soon as they found the Blairs were involved and refused to act for me.

If I manage to get Operation Elveden to prosecute Blair and Edwards, it may be possible to bring the larger story to the mainstream media. Let us hope so because one thing I can vouch for from long personal experience is that where people with power and influence are involved the laws which govern us fall rapidly into abeyance.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh

Operation Eleveden

Metropolitan Police

New Scotland Yard

8/10 The Broadway

London SW1H OBG

(Tel: 0207 230 1212)

21 January 2013

CC Gerald Howarth MP

mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk

Dear Mr Kavanagh,

I submit conclusive evidence that (1) the editor of a national newspaper received information from the police illicitly and (2) when questioned under oath at the Leveson Inquiry committed perjury by denying that he had ever received information illicitly from the police .

Piers Morgan

The editor in question is Piers Morgan when he edited the Daily Mirror. The evidence of his receipt of information is beautifully simple: he admitted this in a letter to the PCC dated 16 October 1997 in which he wrote “The police source of our article (whose identity we have a moral obligation to protect”. If the information had been given legitimately there would be no reason for protecting the source. Nor, because no charges were laid or investigation made, could there have been a legitimate reason for releasing the information. A copy of the letter is enclosed.

The letter was sent to me after I complained to the PCC about a dramatically libellous article Morgan published about me on 25 March 1997 (copy enclosed). The illicit information related to complaints made about me by Tony and Cherie Blair to Belgravia Police in March 1997. I had written to them seeking their help and, when they refused, I circulated copies of my letters and the replies I received to the mainstream media at the beginning of the 1997 election campaign. The Blairs did not go to the police when I sent the letters, only after I circulated them to the media. The complaints had so little substance that they were dismissed by the CPS with the ruling “NO CRIME” within a few hours of them being submitted to them for guidance by Belgravia Police.

The odds must be heavily on the Mirror having paid for the information because it is difficult to see what other motive a police officer would have for releasing such information. However, by accepting information illicitly from the police, whether or not money was paid, offences relating to Misconduct in a Public Office and the Official Secrets Act were committed, both by the police officer and Mirror employees including Morgan. If money was paid by the Mirror to the police officer, further offences arise under the laws relating to corruption.

The evidence of Morgan’s perjury before the Leveson Inquiry is contained in the copy of my submission to the Inquiry informing them of the perjury dated 22 December 2011 which I enclose.

I ask you to investigate both Morgan’s receipt of illicit information from the police and his perjury before Leveson.

Jeff Edwards

In addition to Morgan’s perjury, the Mirror reporter who wrote the story about me, their then Chief Crime Reporter Jeff Edwards, also committed perjury before the Leveson Inquiry by denying ever receiving information illicitly from the police. The details are included in the copy of my submission to the Inquiry informing them of the perjury dated 25 March 2012 which I enclose .

As Edwards was the reporter who wrote the story to which Morgan referred in his letter to the PCC, he must have been the person to whom the police officer referred to in Morgan’s letter gave the illicit information. .

I ask you to investigate Edwards for his receipt of illicit information from the police and his perjury before Leveson.

The original police failure to meaningfully investigate my complaint

In 1997 I made a complaint about the illicit supply of information about me by the police to the Mirror. The case was handled by Detective Superintendent Jeff Curtis of Scotland Yard . No meaningful investigation was undertaken because, as Det Supt Curtis eventually admitted to me during a phone call, the “investigation” was ended without anyone at the Mirror being interviewed; not Morgan, Edwards or anyone else. I enclose my final letter to Det Supt Curtis dated 2 December 1999, Det Supt A Bamber’s reply to that letter 13 December 1999 and the PCA’s letter dated November 1999 refusing to investigate further. This again is self-evidently absurd because of the failure to question Morgan and Edwards.

I ask you to investigate Ian Curtis for perverting the course of justice by failing to investigate conclusive and incontrovertible evidence of a serious crime.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in NuLabour news, The Scandalous Blairs | Tagged authoritarianism, BBC, censorship, free speech, liberal bigotry, Tony Blair | Comments (2)

Leveson Inquiry – Leveson makes me (and possibly others) a non-person

November 29, 2012 – 5:49 pm

Robert Henderson

The Leveson Inquiry report was published on 29^th November. The executive summary is at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0779/0779.asp

The full Report is at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780.asp

I have only been able to have a quick glance at the 2000 odd page document but I have found something very strange. I have become a non-person in Leveson World. There is a long list of those making submissions to the Inquiry . I made very substantial submissions to Leveson – my initial submission can be found at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/the-leveson-inquiry-the-blairs-the-mirror-the-police-and-me/ .

Leveson’s report contains a long list of the names of those who made submissions – see – http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_iv.pdf page 1839 volume IV. My name is not in the list.

Not content with refusing to allow me to appear as a core participant or an ordinary witness, Leveson has deliberately excluded any evidence that I made submissions. It would be interesting to know if any other people who made submissions have had their names omitted.

Such an omission is most irregular. Where submissions are solicited by an official inquiry, the submissions, or at least a note of who has made submissions, are routinely included in an appendix to the report.

Why is Leveson so determined not to have my submission to his Inquiry suppressed? Amongst other things I provided him with

1. A letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC when he was Daily Mirror editor admitting that he had received in formation from the police in circumstances which can only have been have been illegal.

2. Evidence that Morgan and his one-time Mirror chief crime reporter Jeff Edwards had committed perjury under oath before the Inquiry .

3. Evidence that the police conducted an “ investigation” in the Morgan letter to the PCC without questioning Morgan or anyone else at the Mirror.

4. The abject failure of the PCC to address my complaints of the most serious libels against me.

5. Huge evidence of press abuse of me.

Details of these issues and my extended correspondence with the Inquiry can be found at:

The Leveson Inquiry report was published on 29^th November. The executive summary is at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0779/0779.asp

The full Report is at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780.asp

Such an omissions is most irregular. Where submissions are solicited by an official inquiry, the submissions, or at least a note of who has made submissions, are routinely included in an appendix to the report.

Why is Leveson so determined not to have my submission to his Inquiry suppressed? Amongst other things I provided him with

1. A letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC when he was Daily Mirror editor admitting that he had received in formation from the police in circumstances which can only have been have been illegal.

2. Evidence that Morgan and his one-time Mirror chief crime reporter Jeff Edwards had committed perjury under oath before the Inquiry .

3. Evidence that the police conducted an “ investigation” in the Morgan letter to the PCC without questioning Morgan or anyone else at the Mirror.

4. The abject failure of the PCC to address my complaints of the most serious libels against me.

5. Huge evidence of press abuse of me.

Details of these issues and my extended correspondence with the Inquiry can be found at:

Tag Archives: Leveson Inquiry

« Older posts

Piers Morgan, perjury, the police, the Leveson Inquiry and Denis MacShane

October 25, 2012 – 7:37 pm

Note: I attended an Orwell Prize meeting on 24 October at the Frontline Club in Paddington. The erstwhile Labour Cabinet Minister Denis MacShane was one of the speakers. The subject was the misbehaviour of the police and their relations with the media. When questions from the audience were called for I told the meeting about Piers [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged censorship, democracy, free speech, liberal bigotry, political correctness, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – My Subject Access request: the Inquiry withhold data

May 26, 2012 – 5:32 pm

My Subject Access request to Leveson has resulted in virtually no material being released and an admission that they are withholding information on the grounds of legal privilege. I am challenging this with the Information Commissioner – details below. The course of my request can be found at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/leveson-inquiry-data-protection-act-request-for-information/. In addition to my submission to the [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, law, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (0)

Is there a deliberate attempt to sabotage the trial of Rebekah Brooks and co?

May 21, 2012 – 9:08 pm

Robert Henderson At first glance it beggars belief that Alison Levitt QC, the principal legal advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) , took the decision to prosecute the one time chief executive of News International and erstwhile editor of the News of the World (NoW) Rebekah Brooks and others associated with her beggars [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged authoritarianism, CPS, DPP, law, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (0)

Leveson Inquiry – Lord Leveson prepares the way for the cancellation of part 2

May 10, 2012 – 11:41 am

Robert Henderson Leveson hints at an early end to the Inquiry On 2 May the London paper the Evening Standard let a rather large cat out of the bag. It reported that Lord Leveson, in a ruling made very quietly on 1 May, had hinted strongly that he wanted to cut short his eponymous Inquiry. [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – Politicians and the Press

May 3, 2012 – 8:41 am

Miss Kim Brudenell Solicitor to the Inquiry Leveson Inquiry Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC1 2 May 2012 Cc All barristers employed by the Inquiry Dear Ms Brudenell, Politicians and the Press I enclose three examples of collusion between politicians and the press. All cases demonstrate the willingness of the British mainstream media to [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, NWO, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – Jeff Edwards and another prima facie case of perjury

March 26, 2012 – 2:08 pm

Miss Kim Brudenell Solicitor to the Inquiry Leveson Inquiry Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC1 25 March 2012 Dear Miss Brudenell, The evidence given by Jeff Edwards before the Inquiry on 17 March 2012 provides another prima facie instance of perjury. Mr Edwards was the reporter who wrote the hideously libellous story about me [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged censorship, law, liberal bigotry, morals, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – Harriet Harman has her deniability removed

March 18, 2012 – 10:13 pm

Note: I attended a conference entitled Taking on the Media Barons on Saturday 17 March. Its subject was media abuse including the issues under consideration by the Leveson Inquiry. Harriet Harman was the first speaker. In the course of her talk she spoke enthusiastically about the fearless way the Leveson Inquiry was going about its work. The [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, The Scandalous Blairs|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, immigration, liberal bigotry, political correctness, race, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – Data Protection Act request for information

February 29, 2012 – 5:31 pm

RE: Urgent – For Kim BrudenellFriday, 24 February, 2012 12:57 From: “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”Add sender to ContactsTo: “‘robert henderson’”, “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”Dear Mr Henderson Thank you for your email the contents of which are noted. I appreciate that you have long standing concerns regarding Mr Morgan. The Inquiry’s position was made clear in our emails [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The willing censor|Also tagged censorship, free speech, liberal bigotry, political correctness, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – the killer question Robert Jay QC is not asking

February 29, 2012 – 5:22 pm

The leading counsel to the Leveson Inquiry Robert Jay QC and his fellow barristers are being surprisingly inept in their questioning when it comes to the question of the police illicitly supplying information to the press. It is noticeable that although some very damaging revelations have come out during the course of the Inquiry, to [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged censorship, free speech, liberal bigotry, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

The Leveson Inquiry and the suppression of evidence

February 27, 2012 – 1:48 pm

NB This article is also on the Libertarian Alliance website http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/the-leveson-inquiry-and-the-suppression-of-evidence/ Robert Henderson The remit of the Leveson Inquiry into the British Press is clear: Module 1: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour. Module 2: The relationships between the press and police and the extent [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged censorship, free speech, liberal bigotry, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (0)

Leveson Inquiry: sabotaging deniability

February 20, 2012 – 6:28 pm

Robert Henderson To remove the defence of “I did not know”from those running the Inquiry, I have sent a fascimile copy of Morgan letter to the PCC to every barrister employed by the Inquiry via their chambers and to Leveson at the House of Lords —————————————– To: Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry Robert Jay QC, [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs|Also tagged censorship, free speech, liberal bigotry, media, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry – Wanted- people who have had their evidence ignored

February 17, 2012 – 12:54 pm

The Leveson Inquiry are refusing to use my evidence of press, PCC and police misdoing. They will not even take up the matter of Piers Morgan’s perjury before them despite the fact that I have given them a letter from Morgan to the PCC in which he writes “ The police source of our article [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs|Also tagged nationhood, NWO, political correctness, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (5)

The Leveson Inquiry – Robert Henderson’s evidence still being considered

February 14, 2012 – 4:32 pm

Miss Kim Brudenell Solicitor to the Inquiry Leveson Inquiry Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC1 14 February 2012 Dear Miss Brudenell, Confirming our telephone conversation of 14 February, you stated: 1. That my email to you of 27 January was received despite no acknowledgement being sent . 2. That my various submissions to the [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged censorship, freedom, liberal bigotry, media, political correctness, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (1)

Leveson Inquiry: Robert Henderson’s application for core participant status

January 27, 2012 – 10:17 pm

The Leveson Inquiry- Note on the Directions Hearing 25 1 2012 in Court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice Robert Henderson I attended a directions hearing for the decision on whether I would be designated a Core Participant. I shall not be Core Participant (unless I can somehow persuade Lord Leveson otherwise), but I could [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, media, police, political correctness, security services|Edit|Comments (5)

Leveson Inquiry – the response to Robert Henderson’s application to be a Core Participant

January 11, 2012 – 9:01 pm

Leveson Inquiry Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC1 22 12 2011 Dear Lord Leveson, Piers Morgan indubitably lied to the Inquiry (20 December) when he claimed that he had never illicitly received information from the police. On 25 November I submitted a series of complaints backed by documentation to the Inquiry. These were definitely [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, free speech, law, liberal bigotry, media, security services, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (3)

Referral of Piers Morgan’s perjury to the Leveson Inquiry

December 22, 2011 – 5:36 pm

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, The willing censor|Also tagged authoritarianism, censorship, free speech, political correctness, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (2)

Piers Morgan lied to the Leveson Inquiry

December 20, 2011 – 9:24 pm

Piers Morgan lied to the Leveson Inquiry (20 12 2011) when he claimed he had never illicitly received information from the police when Mirror editor. I can say this categorically because he admitted doing so in a letter to the PCC in 1997 when he wrote “”The police source of our article (whose identity we [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, The Scandalous Blairs|Also tagged authoritarianism, free speech, media, morals, police, Tony Blair|Edit|Comments (7)

The Leveson Inquiry: a shameless attempt to censor my evidence

November 30, 2011 – 3:29 pm

RE: Submission to the Inquiry involving media abuse and the buying of police info Tuesday, 29 November, 2011 13:26 From: “Leveson Inquiry General Enquiries”View contact detailsTo: “robert henderson”Dear Mr Henderson, Thank you for your submission which has been received by the Inquiry Team. You will appreciate that we have received a large amount of evidence [...]

By Robert Henderson|Posted in Elite Mischief, Politics, The Scandalous Blairs, The willing censor|Also tagged media, PCC, police, Press|Edit|Comments (0)

The Leveson Inquiry: the Blairs, the Mirror, the police and me

November 25, 2011 – 4:25 pm

generalenquiries@levesoninquiry.org.uk 25 November 2011 Dear Lord Leveson, I submit examples of misbehaviour by the media and the PCC plus collusion between the police and the media . In every case I was the person who was directly affected by the behaviour. For each case I enclose supporting documents which strongly support my accusation. I wish [...]

By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Politics, The Scandalous Blairs | Tagged authoritarianism, censorship, free speech, Leveson Inquiry, media, political correctness | Comments (0)

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Category Archives: Elite Mischief

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Tape recording of my interview with Jeff Curtis has been sent to you

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Tag Archives: Leveson Inquiry

Share this:

Like this:

Search by category

Browse by category

Browse the archives

Blog Stats

Email Subscription

Pages

Tags

Blogroll

Most Recent

Follow “Living In A Madhouse”