The Death of David Kelly - Is Peter Neyroud naive or dishonest?

My attention has been drawn to a recent interchange on Twitter between Peter Neyroud (former Chief Constable of Thames Vaelly Police) and Stephen Frost:

C Stephen Frost ‏ @CStephenFrost

· Open

@pwneyroud @_EJF_ @gaemar01 @levesoninquiry well it is widely accepted that DC Coe and ACC Page lied to Lord Hutton ... did you know that?
Peter Neyroud Peter Neyroud ‏ @pwneyroud

Close

@CStephenFrost @_ejf_ @gaemar01 @levesoninquiry I have never heard that and it is simply not true.
Hide conversation
6:52 PM - 11 Mar 12 via Twitter for iPad · Details

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

17h C Stephen Frost C Stephen Frost ‏ @CStephenFrost

· Open

@pwneyroud @_ejf_ @gaemar01 @levesoninquiry it seems that it is true ... I wish that it weren't ... I can provide links if you wish? ...

The above quote is complete.

The most relevant parts are Stephen Frost writing:

well it is widely accepted that DC Coe and ACC Page lied to Lord Hutton ... did you know that?

Peter Neyroud replies:

I have never heard that and it is simply not true.

Long-term readers of this blog may remember that Peter Neyroud was awarded the Gary P. Hayes Award a few months after the murder of David Kelly was successfully covered up . See The Death of Dr. David Kelly - The Gary P. Hayes Award.

Could such an "outstanding" policeman be so naive as to be unaware that officers on his force were lying to the Hutton Inquiry in 2003?

See my previous post, The Death of David Kelly - Unreliability of the evidence of ACC Page regarding the dental records, for information sent to the Attorney General on 13th May 2011.

If Peter Neyroud was an honest (former) policeman he would want to support a re-opening of an investigation where his officers have been shown to have lied, wouldn't he?

The Death of David Kelly - Information Commissioner Decision Notice FS50418745

A new aspect of the lengths to which Thames Valley Police will go to cover up what I believe to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly was revealed in a recent Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner.

The Information Commissioner on 15th February 2012 issued a Decision Notice in relation to a complaint regarding the failure of Thames Valley Police to answer a number of questions about the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The summary information has been published by the information Commissioner here: Decision notices – February 2012.

The full text of the Decision Notice is available here: View PDF of Decision Notice FS50418745. The link appears to oblige you to download a PDF file.

In an inital reading of the material I suspect that I am "Individual A" mentioned in Paragraph 19 of the Decision Notice.

Paragraph 15 of the Decision Notice implies that Thames Valley Police infiltrated a closed Facebook group intended to discuss the death of Dr. David Kelly.

So far as I'm aware the Thames Valley Police officer(s) and/or others who seemingly infiltrated the group did not disclose that they were acting on behalf of Thames Valley Police.

To the best of my knowledge there is no credible suggestion that the closed Facebook group was being used for any criminal purpose.

So the question arises as to why Thames Valley Police should act in such a way.

Surely it would have been a better use of Police time to give honest answers to legitimate questions.

But such is not Thames Valley Police's habit when the questions relate to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The Death of David Kelly - Mr Justice Nicol refuses leave for Judicial Review of Attorney General's decision

The BBC and other media are reporting that on Monday 19th December 2011, at the High Court in London, Mr "Justice" Nicol refused Mr. David Halpin leave to proceed to judicial review of Dominic Grieve's decision which was announced on 9th June 2011. See for example Dr David Kelly inquest ruling challenge fails.

The BBC report states,

The court said there was "no impropriety" or procedural flaw in the way Mr Grieve had considered the evidence and concluded a new inquest was unnecessary.

,

which is an interesting position for Mr. Justice Nicol to adopt.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the shameful nature of Dominic Grieve's decision in my view. See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General.

According to the Matrix Law website David Halpin's case was deemed to be "unarguable" (Matrix Chambers):

19/12/11 High Court says that challenge to Attorney General's decision on Kelly Inquest is "unarguable"Mr Justice Nicol rejected a challenge by a retired surgeon who sought to challenge the Attorney General's decision not to apply for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Following a day's hearing, Mr Justice Nicol said that the claim against the Attorney General was "unarguable" and ordered the Claimant to pay the Attorney's costs. Jonathan Glasson acted for the Attorney General, led by Jonathan Swift QC, First Treasury Counsel. For more details, please see the BBC website.

Currently, I cannot locate any written judgement by Mr. Justice Nicol therefore cannot yet fairly assess whether or not Mr. Justice Nicol's contention of the case being "unarguable" is simply a reflection of his being a "safe pair of establishment hands".

Given that the establishment appointed Lord Hutton as a "safe pair of hands" with a track record of covering up murder by state agents (see, for example, The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton has "previous" in concealing murder which would be embarassing to the State ) it would not surprise me at all if Mr. "Justice" Nicol replaced Mr. Justice Parker for similar reasons.

The Death of David Kelly - Freedom of Information Requests about the Death of Dr. David Kelly

One of the growing problems in attempting to keep on top of what new information is available about the death of Dr. Kelly is that there is no single place where the responses to Freedom of Information requests are available.

I'm intending to produce a document that tabulates all the information that is publicly available.

I imagine that this will take quite some time to put together.

If you have asked any FOI questions I'd appreciate it if you would forward to me a copy of your question(s) and the response(s).

I hope progressively to add such responses to a document which collates all the FOI questions asked and the answers given.

I know, for example, that Norman Baker MP asked a significant number of FOI questions but those questions and the answers are not publicly visible, so far as I know. Which seems a pity.

Please email information about any FOI requests that you've made about the death of David Kelly to AndrewWattChilcot@gmail.com

The Death of David Kelly - Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people

I was browsing today some of my earliest posts on this blog.

On 9th February 2010, Chilcot's Cheating Us: Britain's First Genuinely Public Inquiry, I wondered if internet technologies might enable a new quality of questioning of governments:

Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people

I think that a beginning has been made.

Much less has been achieved so far, perhaps, than I'd hoped back in February 2010.

But, equally, more cages have been rattled than I'd feared might be the case.

Will inquiry of the Government with respect to an illegal war and the suspicious death of David Kelly be more than pin-pricks?

Time will tell.

I can't imagine that Dominic Grieve or Sara Thornton are entirely comfortable with how things are developing.

The Iraq Inquiry: Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir John Chilcot

The stimulus to starting this blog was my being appalled at the psychopathic complacency of Tony Blair when he appeared before the Iraq Inquiry on 29th January 2010.

See Oral Evidence: 29 January 2010 for links to videos and a transcript of Tony Blair's evidence.

On 2nd February 2010 I wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry expressing my concerns that Tony Blair had committed criminal offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to Iraq.

In that letter to Sir John Chilcot, I mention a letter sent to Sir Paul Stephenson and the (then) Assistant Commissioner John Yates. I have posted the text of that letter on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: Terrorism Act 2000 Section 56 offences etc - Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates.

2nd February 2010

To:
Sir John Chilcot,
Chairman,
Iraq Inquiry

Iraq War: Multiple Serious Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000

Dear Sir John,

I write to draw to your attention an important issue relating to the legality of the Iraq War which, to the best of my knowledge, your Inquiry has failed to address.

The important issue to which I refer is whether or not individuals concerned in the planning and execution of the Iraq War committed criminal offences under UK law when carrying out the actions which are the subject of the Iraq Inquiry.

Briefly, the Inquiry seems to have concentrated when exploring the legality or otherwise of the Iraq War entirely on questions of international law. The Inquiry appears to have omitted to examine whether actions relating to the Iraq War involved criminal offences under UK law.

I suggest to you that this is a serious omission on the part of the Iraq Inquiry which you require to rectify.

I enclose a copy of a letter I am sending today to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and the Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations informing them of my belief that serious offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000 were committed by a substantial number of UK citizens, a few of whom I list in my letter. The seriousness of some of these offences are such that Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 indicates that life imprisonment is the punishment on conviction.

Your Inquiry has interviewed a number of those individuals who can, I believe, be fairly termed “terrorists” following a careful reading of Sections 1 and 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who have, I believe, committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and, on conviction, would be liable to life imprisonment.

So far as I am aware your Inquiry has entirely failed to explore this matter of terrorism (as specified in the Terrorism Act 2000) carried out by those who planned and executed the Iraq War. It seems to me that this is a grave omission on the part of the Iraq Inquiry.

It seems to me that you require to re-interview Lord Goldsmith in his role as the Government’s “expert” on matters of law. As far as I can ascertain your Inquiry did not explore the issues of criminal actions under UK law in respect of the actions proposed in Iraq from March 2003. If Lord Goldsmith, in issuing his advice, gave no consideration to the matter of criminality under UK law that seems to me to have been gross negligence on the part of Lord Goldsmith. I believe that you should explore his seeming omission in detail.

Similarly, so far as I can gather, your Inquiry entirely omitted to explore this important issue when you recently had a conversation with Mr. Blair. Your Inquiry further omitted to explore with Mr. Blair whether he knew that the action he proposed in Iraq was “terrorism” as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 and whether or not he was aware that he might be committing an offence as specified in Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and causing others to commit the same criminal offence and a range of other offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

You might also specifically wish to explore with Mr. Blair his level of awareness that for many years now the influencing by violence or overthrowing of the government of another state is an “act of terrorism” (see for example subsection 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993), a notion carried forward in the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In addition to the narrow (but extremely important) matters of law that I mention above I suggest that the Inquiry also has a duty to explore with Mr. Blair (and probably others including Lord Goldsmith) the effect of the reality that the generality of those participating in the Iraq War are “terrorists” as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That reality will, I surmise, be disturbing to the relatives of the dead terrorists from the British Armed Forces and the living terrorists from those forces who, perhaps unwittingly, committed criminal offences of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000.

In sending this letter I hereby give you permission to enter this letter and a copy of the letter to Sir Paul Stephenson into the public record of the Iraq War Enquiry. If possible, I would be grateful if you would obscure my home address in any copies made available for public viewing.

I note that in your Opening Statement a few weeks ago you claimed that the Iraq Inquiry would be “thorough” and “rigorous”. I look forward to learning of your Inquiry’s diligent public examination of these important issues.

Thank you.

Your sincerely



Andrew H Watt

cc. Sir Paul Stephenson

Addressee:

Sir John Chilcot,
Iraq Inquiry
35 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BG.

The Death of David Kelly - A coy Cabinet Office on COBRA

On 16th May I posted briefly on this blog about the Government emergency procedures sometimes known as COBRA, wondering if COBRA was activated in relation to the disappearance and death of David Kelly: The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 were ministers and civil servants seeing something like this?.

In parallel I sent a Freedom of Information request on the same day to the Cabinet Office asking if the COBRA mechanisms had been activated on 17th and 18th July 2003. See FOI Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

On 20th September 2011 I was sent an FOI Response which I viewed as being wholly inadequate and evasive. See FOI Response from the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

On 22nd September 2011 I sent a request to the Cabinet Office asking for internal review of the FOI Response. See FOI Review Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

Given the "non-answer" of 20th September 2011 from the Cabinet Office one could be forgiven for thinking that there is something here that the Cabinet Office wishes to hide.