from:alt.conspiracy As, always, Caveat Lector Om K ----- Click Here: <A HREF="aol://5863:126/alt.conspiracy:616034">JACK STRAW - WHY IS NULAB CORRUPTION ALLOWED?</A> ----- Subject: JACK STRAW - WHY IS NULAB CORRUPTION ALLOWED? From: peter <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED] o.uk</A> Date: Tue, May 16, 2000 4:57 AM Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 156 Levita House, Chalton Street, London NW1 1HR Tel 0207/387/5018 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16/5/2000 Ms Elizabeth Filkin Parliamentary Commissioner For Standards In Public Life House of Commons London SWlPOAA cc All national newspapers Dear Mrs Filkin, I enclose the first two of the further complaints I promised to submit during our meeting of 3 May. Both concern possible perversions of the course of justice. As the people involved are the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, the complaints are as serious as any which could be brought before you. Jack Straw On 14 March 2000, Jack Straw's brother William went into Beeston police station (Nottinghamshire) and confessed to assaulting a 14 year-old-boy. Versions of the incident on the Internet suggest that the boy was his son and the confession concerned a serious sexual assault. He was not charged. The police have since announced that no further investigation is to be made. On 26 March 2000 I wrote to Jack Straw asking him to clarify the Internet reports. A copy of the letter is enclosed. He has failed to answer. I sent a second letter on 9 April 2000 pressing him to reply. A copy of the letter is enclosed. Again, there has been no reply. In their 5 April 2000 issue, Punch magazine carried details of the story on the front cover, in the leader and in the lead article by Chris Hutchins. I enclose copies of these documents. I would draw your attention in particular to the statement by a senior Metropolitan Police officer that "...that it would be a very brave custody sergeant who would release back into the community a man who had confessed to the crime you (Punch) have mentioned." William Straw has now been charged with a further assault on a 16-year-old-girl. Internet reports of the matter suggest that the girl is Straw's daughter. I enclose a copy of the Daily Telegraph story dated 12/5/2000 entitled "Straw's brother on assault charge". This story also refers to the original incident at Beeston police station. The failure to charge William Straw originally and the remarkably rapid end to any investigation (if indeed, any took place), suggests that the police did not treat William Straw as they would have done any ordinary member of the public. As his brother is Home Secretary, there are, prima facie, good grounds for believing that Jack Straw has interfered with the course of justice. That constitutes the criminal offence of perverting the perverting the course of justice. If so, he must also be guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice because he could not have done so without help. I would remind you that this is the second occasion on which a relative of Jack Straw's has been involved with the law since he became Home Secretary. His son, also called William, got away with a caution despite the fact that he was not merely in possession of a drug but acting as a supplier. Moreover, during that episode, the Mirror reporter who exposed the son, Dawn Alford, was subjected to considerable harassment by the police which was totally at variance with the police's normal behaviour when a newspaper goes to them with an exposure of drug offences. Just to remind you of what happened, I enclose a copy of the Mirror story written on 13/1/1998 by Alford at the end of the affair. Mr Straw, is not of course, responsible for the actions of his brother, nor entirely responsible for those of his own son. But my complaint is not about what either brother or son has done. It is about the seeming failure to apply the rigour of the law to either. The case of Jack Straw's brother is very disturbing for reasons other than any perversion of the course of justice. Obviously, William Straw is not a balanced individual and yet he was allowed back into the community without any restrictions on his behaviour, despite having given the police ample evidence through his confession that he was a potential danger to others. Tony Blair In 1997/98, Blair's father-in-law, Tony Booth, committed a series of frauds by falsely claiming Income Support and Mortage-Interest Benefit and by making false statements to the Child Support Agency. When he made the claims, Booth had nearly 10,000 in a Swiss bank account. He also worked during the period for which the benefit was claimed and the attempt at evading child support payments was made. The detail of the fraud and the failure to prosecute are contained in a very detailed News of the World story dated 16/8/1998, a copy of which I enclose. Because Booth has failed to take any legal action over the matter, it is reasonable to assume the story is true. In addition, there is the testimony of his ex-wife who has been dealing with the various agencies involved and who may be reasonably be expected to know the inside details of the matter both because of her long-term involvement with Booth and the fact that the various agencies would have had to explain what Booth had done simply to justify their actions, in particular, the refusal to backdate Booth's payments to her for the period during which he was fraudulently claiming. . As an ex-Revenue investigator who did a good deal of joint operations work with the DSS, I am well aware of the criteria used to decide whether prosecutions should take place. Booth met them beautifully, in fact, his was a textbook case. The fraud was multiple. There was a sophisticated attempt to hide assets by putting them in a Swiss bank account. Booth worked while claiming. He received other income such as repeat fees whilst claiming. The amounts of money defrauded were substantial. The claimant was not so mentally disabled that he did not understand what he was doing. I can think of many other people considerably less qualified for prosecution who were prosecuted. Again, the complaint is not that Blair is responsible for his relative's criminal actions, but that he has used his position to prevent prosecution and thus commit the crime of perverting the course of justice and had engaged in a conspiracy to do so. Your obvious first move is to interview Booth's ex-wife, Nancy Jaeger. As she is the primary source of the NoW's story I cannot imagine you will encounter any resistance from her to such an interview. Conclusion I shall be more than ordinarily interested to see how you deal with these particular complaints, because they go the heart of political corruption in its broad sense. I would be willing to bet a substantial amount that any disinterested third party would conclude that both of the failures to prosecute arose from political pressure. Plainly they breach our old friend from the Code of Conduct: Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute. But they also flout these sections of the Code: 11. Public Duty Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. 111. Personal Conduct Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, in favour of the public interest. Leadership Holders of public office should promote and support these principles [of the Code of Conduct] by leadership and example. Always remember, Mrs Filkin, that at some time in the future you will have to justify your decisions in public. Yours sincerely, Robert Henderson -- Robert Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- peter ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
