Members: Correspondence

Constitutional Affairs written question – answered on 27th March 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Baron John Baron Shadow Minister (Health)

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs when she expects to reply to the letters of (a) 23 November 2006 and (b) 1 March 2007 on Mr. Nettleingham from the hon. Member for Billericay.

Photo of Vera Baird Vera Baird Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs

My hon. Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland replied to the hon. Gentleman's letter on 22 March. I apologise for the delay.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No18 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.


Richard Nettleingham
Posted on 7 Apr 2007 10:49 pm (Report this annotation)

I thank you for your letter dated 22 March 2007. I have been 'taken by surprise' that over 4 months of silence has been allowed to pass by a Govt. Office and my MP since Rt Hon John Baron raised my whistleblow to the office responsible for the timely administration of justice, rights and democracy.

Please be aware this issue was 'only raised' in good faith on the grounds of probative evidence of actual civil service impropriety.

On 21 November and 6 December 2006 Rt Hon John Baron MP wrote to the DCA on the grounds of a genuine public interest concern. He received no written response until 22 MARCH 2007.

The explanation given on 22 March does not say why John Baron MP was not contacted as soon as your Govt. Office officials knew they were "unable to locate the file".

The very serious issues were probatively specified in a degree of detail that need not be repeated here other than to respectfully share the truism that:

(1) There is evidenced today of a fatal error with the fairness and independence of the 'judicial selection system' uncovered from this whistleblower experience.

(2) In the interests of justice, the constituent raised the fact that he had audited the Judges wife's solicitors practice (Scannell & Co) whilst employed by the Judges personal Chartered Accountant (John Kent).

(3) The constituent physically identified the Judge and recognised him from his appearance that directly connected him to John Kent (the constituents previous employer).

(4) By physically recognising the Judge, the Judge had few options available to him other than to confirm and declare his family connection and true link to John Kent.

(5) The constituent had already been independently informed that John Kent and the Judge are related by family. As an accountant the constituent had some involvement with the Scannell accounts whilst working for Mr Kent. The Judge(John Scannell) did later confirm in writing that Mr Kent was indeed his personal Chartered Accountant.


(6) The Eye witness whistleblower's account was taken off him and falsified. The account was then handed back to him and he was ordered to "say only" the words on that statement. The document was a falsehood in it's entirety written by a Judge who has been identified to hold prejudicial interests, connected to the subject issues and a Freemason.(see 3rd,7th 13th degree Freemason doctrines and Govt. Office documents to know the full grounds of these public interest facts).

(7) The Crucial Public Interest Health & Safety whistleblows, (cogently evidenced as true), were deliberately taken out by removal and 'destroyed by confiscation'.

(8)The Judge mostly kept silent and failed to answer all crucial specifics put to him that raised justified questions about his judicial independence. He further refused to step down.

(9) The maladministration evidence shows subordination of perjury, an act 'perverting the course of justice' and unlawful interference with true witness evidence.

(10) There was then (and are today) strong grounds supported by substantive evidence of exceptionally serious 'maladministration', breach of 'duty of care' and detrimental 'cover-up' of wrongdoing that remains potentially harmful to all members of the public.


(11) This Billericay constituent was 'taken by surprise' when the Health and Safety issues he exposed were then 'covered-up', this act only to be then aided by the responsible Govt. Office accountable for the Administration of Justice.

(12) The whistleblow to John Baron MP was to share irrefutable evidence of why a Freemason Judge cannot fairly be part of an independent judicial body, nor impartially sit, review or decide any of the issues of this particular case.

(13) The reason being that death threats had been suffered and captured in evidence confirming that the Freemasons 'run this country' and that this whistleblower's name would be sent to a London Lodge and he would be executed on paper by the Freemasons if this situation 'blows'.

(14) The Freemason threat ordered the whistleblower resigned and did not write his dossier (expose) revealing the witnessed Health and Safety dangers.

(15)Because of that callous threat suffered and evidenced as coming from the Freemasons, a whistleblow exposing their involvement in corporate corruption could not be fairly heard by a fellow Freemason Judge.

(16) Under Freemason Law (3rd, 7th and 13th degree) a Freemason must conceal ALL wrongdoing of his fellows. (This includes their crimes).

(17) Enclosed in your letter of 22 March 2007 are 2 documents signed by Judge Goolam Meeran. Both these letters display the well known signature cipher of a Freemason. (Verifiable non-alphabetic symbols unique and specific to the secret society of UK Freemasons).


(18) There remains the evidenced matter of 'stealth intimidation by police' and 'death threats' for innocent people to resign from their jobs and stay silent about known corruption or 'health and safety dangers'. This is all cogently evidenced and 'should never' be allowed to be covered up in any democratic society.


On the grounds of the serious 'public interest facts' raised and voluminous evidence now captured over 5 years - proving the logic, substance and sequence of these "sinister linked events" :

I make application through my MP for an imminent cross-party parlimentary committee to now be tabled in 2007 on the misuse and impropriety of the unregulated culture of Freemasonry inside the Judiciary and Police in Britain.

(This request being on the same grounds as the March 1997 Parliamentary Committee called by Chris Mullen MP and Martin Short. Here evidence of serious abuses of authority and mandatory obligations(oaths) taken by UK Freemasons in the Police and Judiciary was tabled. I understand the Unlawful Societies Act 1799 was also relevant to the grounds of the matters then tabled).

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing your considered response.

Richard Nettleingham
Posted on 12 May 2007 6:28 pm (Report this annotation)

Why has my public response to Baroness Ashton of Uphollands letter been removed from this website display for all members of the public to see.

I'm not satisfied with the DCA's response that the failure to reply to Mr John Baron within the required time period was because the DCA had "lost the file".

This type of answer from the DCA would not normally prevent the DCA contacting the MP to inform him of that fact well before 3 months elapsed. Instead he had to write 3 letters until, what may or may not be the truth has been divulged.

Why would the DCA allow more than 3months to pass without notifying the MP or the constituent that they had 'lost a public file' containing very serious public interest whistleblows exposing unlawful coercion and linked acts that pervert the course of justice?

Given the severe content and public safety interest in the content of that particular file , it appears only to be to the advantage of a DCA Civil Service and the Multinational concerned, that this file has strangely disappeared?

The evidence still shows that levels of impropriety in this area of the South East appear to be linked to the discovery of a continuing culture of 'local and unlawful' cover-up.

When will transparency, integrity and exposure for the protection of the public interest prevail?