HM The Queen Defender of Faith and the Catholic Saint making process in the light of Savile Inquiry

The request was refused by Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Dear Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,

I wish to draw matters to your attention on a public website and invite any response you may care to make by way of disclosure.

The Head of the Catholic Church in UK Vincent Nichol has applied to the Pope to remove the papal knighthood awarded Jimmy Savile 1990 ?

When Cormac Murphy O Connor was Head Catholic in UK he undertook to ensure that a report into the Matron McGill death at the Sue Ryder Home Cavendish 1972 would be weighed by a future process if Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder are made subject of their saint making process.

My understanding of Vincent Nicol's position is that he reversed that undertaking.

We now have an Attorney General using secret public interest custodianship power to deny access to the High Court to seek a quash of the suicide verdict handed down on Matron McGill in 1972.

The Queen is the sole fount of justice and the defender of the faith.

She is also Queen of New Zealand Matron McGill's country. And their government by diplomatic cable 3404 of March 1972 instructed their diplomats in London to seek advice of the Home Office which I assume was a part of Her Majestys Govt in UK ?

The diplomats wanted to re-open the inquest into their citizens death. An inquest held in secret within the Sue Ryder Home where Matron McGill died just 3 days after the death. The New Zealand kin to this day have never been informed of the death by Suffolk Police and were not informed of the holding of an inquest.

In 1972 Sue Ryder misled the New Zealand family autopsy had established natural causes and concealed that there would be a secret inquest next day. Miss McGill drowned but because no forensic pathology took place no diatom testing it is not known whether she drowned in a bath at the home (Like Stefania Bronk six months later another suicide verdict) or whether she drowned in the home's lake. The story used at inquest with absolutely no evidence of immersion in the lake whatsoever.

Sue Ryder in 1972 was too ill to give an inquest statement but she had miraculous intermittent remissions from illness to mislead the New Zealand McGill family and to get the body cremated thus not only denying the McGills rights to know about the inquest and instruct representation but also rights to full autopsy and forensic pathology.

We have Dominic Grieve MP and Vincent Nicol at one it seems.

Dominic wants to keep the McGill death away from operation yewtree in spite of the fact he knows that for 42 years the autopsy listed bruising is indicative of sexual assault. In spite of YewTree anyway investigating a Sue Ryder Hospice and a care home later bought by Leonard Cheshire.

I was the Pc given the duty when Matron McGill's body was reported as found 3.40 PM 22.1.72

There is a glaring anomaly of which Mr Grieve and Vincent Nicol are aware. The explanation given later in 1972 by Sir Eric Berthoud of the Sue Ryder Homes in conjunction with Sue Ryder's solicitor. You see they wrote the home was circulated for inquest witnesses on the morning of the death itself, knowing that only those with an advance statement would be called in inquest evidence.

I know they are very special people apprentice saint status. But how did they know in the morning that they would discover Matron McGill's body mid afternoon ?

I took an oath to the Queen as a constable. She took an oath to the people at Coronation. Her duty and oath as Sole Fount of Justice binds my oath as a constable.

The constitutional arrangements for primacy of judiciary and the office of constable under the Crown I rather like.

I rather like the principle that no matter how high you are (Govt and particularly Mr Grieve Attorney General) the law must be above you. I have always thought that was why having a monarch might be a good idea.

This sort of quaint idea that a constable is sworn to the Queen and bends his knee to no man in the discharge of duty faithfully unto law than a JUDGE in OPEN Court.

I do not accept that a constable can discharge a duty faithfully unto law by bowing to whatever secret public interest ideas a career politician Attorney General might indulge.

If Prince Charles becomes Defender of Faiths (plural) what will Dominic Grieve say to him. I defended the Catholic faith by committing treason against your much loved mother ? Undermining HM the Queen as sole fount of justice in mercy. But UK has a new couple of saints by the way.

I would ask you to have a good old think about this. You never know you might have to advise the Queen. Her New Zealand Govt wanted open court justice. Her sworn constable has always wanted open court justice. She guarantees it by Coronation Oath. But her UK Govt want secret administration of injustice.

I must point out that Her Majesty was involved in this before. In 1992 Leonard Cheshire indicated to the 1993 Dambusters Memorial Service team that he would attend and would not need special medical arrangements at that stage.

Which was odd because Sue Ryder had just asked press to prepare his obituary. The diligent East Anglian Daily Times phoned Leonard Cheshire's medical people at Cavendish. And were allegedly told that his prognosis was for four more years of life and that he would be well enough to attend the Dambusters the next year.

And a letter was sent informing Suffolk Chief constable of this strange state of affairs. The journalist suddenly became a Home Office civil servant.

Leonard Cheshire did die in 1992 and HM the Queen attributed most of Her Christmas message to praise him and Thank God for his life.

For some years Leonard had been refusing to answer letters questioning him about the Matron McGill death.

Matron McGill was a volunteer who ended up imposing five 19 hour shifts and 48 hour weekend resident on call. 143 duty hours per week FREE in the relief of suffering. She used her own money to buy inmates pocket money items. What was happening to the weekly pocket money entrusted by DHSS benefits to the Sue Ryder Home to issue to inmates ?

The North Essex Quaker community had withdrawn their volunteer work at the home unimpressed with its care standards. they were in touch with Matron McGill.

The expert opinion ignored by Sir Keith Joseph 1972 who refused care inquiry into Cheshire and Ryder, was that of locum GP and psychiatrist Dr Nini Ettlinger (Nini Herman)

"The homes are not a case of loving patients but of loving Sue Ryder loving patients"

"People are extraordinarily blinded by the smokescreen of charity"

"Sue Ryder is only able to function when surrounded by people more in touch with human reality"

"More people will be driven to despair in this charitable setting "

But if the church is looking for a saint. Look at the Quaker nurse Matron McGill. Working free at a care home she never knew that Sue Ryder had only registered in the Boarding House category of National Assistance Act 1948 (Care Home) she had registered in the lowest category that did not even require the employment of qualified nurses.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Pebbles left an annotation ()

I can't seem to make any connection between any two paragraphs of that request.

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Oh dear. I am expecting the Privy people to read the FOIs to Attorney General. And as Privy Council to have expertise in the law and constitution.

The Attorney General is Absolute Custodian of (secret) public interest.

The Queen is sole fount of justice in mercy

The Queen (and people) are the authority for armed force, constables and judiciary.

The law must be above all.

The Crown authority for policing and judiciary thus able to hold govt to account ?

The case constable wants to discharge his Crown duty faithfully unto the Crown via the Crown judiciary.

The govt law officer does not want the case in open court.

And the case constable says "Then let us go to a Judge in Chambers and you tell the Judge and accept a ruling. That way my constable oath duty is fulfilled and you get to explain to a Judge"

The Attorney General says "No I don't want to explain to a judge"

So how do we hold govt to account ?

Hope that helps Pebbles.

Richard Card left an annotation ()

I see that "Pebbles" seems to have joined this site for the purpose of posting one annotation. That is flattering ?

This FOI is one of a large number of FOIs. They all essentially map the application of secret public interest powers touching on the Leonard Cheshire charity Sue Ryder charity or the activity of its founding trustees. For example the research commissioned by Dept of Health on the residents of 28 Leonard Cheshire Homes. Advice about legality and the rights of the residents ? Secret. Was advice sought by Dept of Health from Attorney General. Secret.

Who took the nil action decision after 21 TA soldiers were arrested for paramilitary activity 1987 ? That is not secret because CPS and the Attorney General don't know !

Why didn't UK comply with the 1990 EU resolution to dismantle unlawful military groups ? Secret I think.

Why whilst breaching the EU resolution did Justice Secretary Jack Straw repeal the Law that made certain groups unlawful ? Does he like private armies who owe no allegiance to the Queen and people ?

The House of Lords say that the 1936 Public Order Act covers the gap left by Straw's repeal of the unlawful drilling act. No it don't. Under the 1936 act no prosecution can be made without the prior consent of attorney general. Hence it is now a secret power of govt to operate armies that have no allegiance to Queen and people.

A complete breach of the Bill and Petition of Rights.

So whether we are looking at access to court of constables, Crown monopoly of armed force, compliance with treaty resolutions the Attorney General is taking power from the Crown and storing it under his secrecy cloak.

Richard

Dear Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,

I am grateful to a member of the public for taking the trouble to register, as a member of this site, to point out that they do not understand a word of the request.

I am, therefore, prompted to offer you something of a history of the case Mary McGILL Decd.

Mary (Known as "Mollie") did not train as a nurse until after WW2. Her activity during hostilities is not known to me. She was a New Zealander raised in the Presbyterian faith.

In about 1950 she came to UK, as a qualified nurse, with a New Zealand Quaker nurse. This is when Mary McGILL became friends with the North Essex Quakers. Hence the inference that the two New Zealand nurses knew Sue Ryder from that time. As that was when Ryder was setting up her charity (with Neave and Sporborg) at Cavendish. The other NZ nurse I think became a Sue Ryder worker on return to New Zealand in the 1950s.

Mary on return to New Zealand did support the Sue Ryder charity with donations. But she pursued a nursing career becoming Deputy Matron of Dee Street Hospital Invercargill. She retired aged 55 in 1971. She met Sue Ryder in New Zealand in 1971 and agreed Sue Ryder's request that she work voluntarily one year resident at the HQ Care Home, Cavendish, Suffolk.

Matron McGILL's volunteer service at Cavendish was set to be May 1971 to May 1972.

I do not know at what date in 1971 the North Essex Quakers withdrew their volunteer help to Sue Ryder at Cavendish.

I do not know whether Sue Ryder thought if she got Matron McGILL at Cavendish she would cause her North Essex Quaker friends to come back as volunteers.

It seems likely that the Cavendish funeral director FITCH was in 1971 contemplating refusal of any further business from Sue Ryder. And that this situation manifested at the time of Matron McGILL's death in January 1972 when Ryder was obliged to authorise me to call Robert MARTIN funeral director of Clare.

In due course Robert MARTIN bought out the Cavendish funeral director and saw, from the records, that they had refused further business from Sue Ryder.

In due course (I don't know when) Robert MARTIN took the same decision and refused to handle Sue Ryder Home deaths. He did explain to me many years later "It was because of the state of the bodies. We could not do a proper job if you know what I mean". I did not know what he meant but he proffered no further explanation.

I infer then that in 1971 Sue Ryder at Cavendish experienced a Quaker community and a funeral director distancing themselves from her.

This then was the situation Matron McGILL entered in May 1971 having travelled to UK at her own expense. Photos of her journey and arrival failed to develop. I do not know if they were processed at the Leonard Cheshire film unit which was on the Cavendish Sue Ryder Home premises.

Matron McGILL's concerns about poor care standards were pretty much immediate on taking up volunteer duty. One North Essex Quaker was a State Registered Nurse friend of Mary McGILL and another State Registered Nurse also visited Matron McGILL at Cavendish. Mary had, if needs be, two qualified corroborative witnesses.

Unknown to Mary McGILL local GP and psychiatrist Dr Nini ETTLINGER had also formed serious concerns about the activity and standards of the Sue Ryder Home.

In December 1971 Mary wrote home to New Zealand saying that she would not be staying at the Sue Ryder Home until May but wanted to leave but that would leave then home with no nurse. In that letter she described the incident in which a tranquillised Russian (Georgina Prince) Muslim inmate aged 85 was converted to Roman Catholicism in a service at the home. And how Ryder issued instructions that "The Old Commander" should be buried as a Ctholic but she hopes he has a long life ahead of him yet.

I suppose this is a suitable point to refer to the postscript of the book "The Man Who was M" and the FOI on my list about Tavistocj Institute Research conducted for UK Govt using 28 Leonard Cheshire Homes.

The rights inherent in our beloved constitutional monarchy and the over detailed (and thus less effective) provision of rights in the European Convention of Human Rights.

I refer, of course, pertaining to our own Realm, to Magna Carta. Incarceration without a trial by peers being something of a should never happen on our shores.

So to the book about old "M" Maxwell Knight Head of MI5. Postcript about his widow Suzi Knight who died in a Sue Ryder Home. Where staff, instructed by civil servants from Whitehall, had denied access to her late husband's biographer. Freedom of association ? Freedom of Movement ? The postcript ends that Suzi died at the Sue Ryder Home in considerable distress Whiteahll had thrown its bureaucratic shroud over her.

And the "Old Commander". Wasn't he incarcerated and denied even freedom of religion ?

Indeed in about September 1972 the East Anglian Daily Times carried a report about a Sue Ryder Home "Resident" who had run away. But all was well because Suffolk Police had returned the person to the Sue Ryder Home. Maybe they did a runner because a drowning in January and a bath drowning in July lent wings to their feet ?

And the Tavistock Institute FOI. Which you can read. Did the Dept of Health seek Govt Law Officer advice about the rights of inmates of Leonard Cheshire Homes ? Undoubtedly Tavistock had great expertise in psychiatry. They had treated WW1 shell shocked soldiers and they had taken custody/care of Rudolf Hess from the moment his little plane bumped into Scotland.

The issue here though is that even the question was advice sought about rights of the Leonard Cheshire inmates gets the answer to the effect "Secret".

We now need to consider the Regional Crime Squad inquiry which started at Llanhennock Gwent. And the matter of a surviving officer's account about Special Branch "Force liaison" trying to warn them off escalting inquiry into Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire Homes (GP Death registration parctices and other suspicions)

And we get a picture. Special Branch wolves protecting the Ryder/Charity flock from the attentions of police sheep dogs. Govt Law officer secrecy about legality of treatment of inmates of the charities. Quakers distancing themselves. Funeral director turning down their trade.

Mary McGILL had cholera jabs in preparation to volunteer at a cholera outbreak working for a different charity. Her phone calls to arrange to meet Suffolk friends (plans to meet 26th Jan 1972) were cut off. Those friends wrote (It is in the sworn exhibit report) We expect it was LC or SR eavesdropping on the switchboard AGAIN ! (Leonard Cheshire or Sue Ryder). the final words they heard from Mary McGILL before the phone cut off "I mustn't panic I mustn't panic". They did not phone back and assumed they would meet her on 26th.

Who ever eavesdropped that call knew her next contact with her outside friends was scheduled for 26th. The weekend after Weds 26th Mary McGILL had arranged to stay with friends in the London area. Then she would stay with a friend in Scotland prior to going to her next volunteer nursing deployment (NOT with the Cheshire or Ryder outfits)

The body of Mary McGILL was reported as found in the home boating lake 3.40 PM Saturday 22.1.72

The post inquest admission of Sue Ryder's solicitor is that in fact the home selected inquest witnesses on the morning of 22.1.72. This is consistent with the appearance of Inquest evidence. The home GP letter and the main inquest witness statements are both by the same typewriter. Leonard Cheshire's statement (Drawn up after autopsy 24.1.72 he hid from police on 22.1.72) was on a different typewriter. Other statements were the same typewriter. Police.

I can of course provide the Judicial Cttee with copies of the Inquest testimony.

In fact I challenge you, eminent figures of law, derive proof of identification and evidence of how Mary McGILL died. Seriously I challenge you.

Particularly this. Find any evidence that informs her final 19 hours. (I'll help with that. there ain't any). This is rather strange because later in 1972 Leonard Cheshire gave an account to New Zealand press that they published. Telling them how he chatted with Matron McGILL on that final fateful night. What is odd you ask ? I see. What is odd is that he did not tell the Inquest that. That he was with Matron McGILL.

That is very unhelpful because the HM Coroner could have asked him if he knew how Matron McGILL had acquired ileac crest bruising and tramline bruising to one shin. And also what part of qualified lawyer Leonard Cheshire's law degree dealt with drawing up inquest testimony before a body is found, before police are called. And what part of his law degree dealt with hiding from police (perhaps exhausted from all that conspiring against HM Coroner in hisn duty to determine true circumstances of death ?)

I do not like one little bit trial by media. It became grotesque in my view in the Stephen Lawrence case.

BUT sometimes the moral high ground has been fenced off (In this case by Attorney General abuse of secret public interest custodianship) and using public domain becomes the lesser of evils. The greater evil being to leave such injustice safely unexposed.

Let us get to your role. Your New Zealand Govt recognises you as supreme court ? And they wanted a New Inquest in the name of your master. HM the Queen sole fount of justice by Coronation Oath.

But they were fobbed off by a report in April 1972 by the Home Office. All in the sworn exhibit report. And HM UK Govt told HM NZ Govt that HM Coroner in Suffolk had not called Sue Ryder as an inquest witness because she was not at the home at the time of the death.

It is a lie and HM UK Govt (In Cahoots with HM Chief constable of Suffolk) attributed this lie to HM Coroner. But HM Coroner had heard the inquest (in secret without jury inside the Sue Ryder Home 25.172 just 3 days after the death, whilst Ryder was conning the NZ family, getting ready to cremate the body sharpish and concealing the holding of an inquest) and he would of course known that the testimony of Leonard Cheshire and that of Ryder's secretary establishes that Ryder was there.

Would Ryder have been able to appoint herself decd rep in UK if she was a witness at inquest ?

Leonard Cheshire's testimony explains that Sue had returned from the Sue Ryder Home Leeds and was exhausted with a severe bout of flu. So severe in fact she did not take to a bed at Leeds or call a Leeds GP but travelled all her way home to cavendish so she could phone ? The Police surgeon GP. Hullo hullo hullo. Would that call to treat her flu perchance have occurred during that final 19 hours ?

On 26th January SR alleged habit of eavesdropping the switchboard seems to have caught her out. The switchboard operator told the caller that the tragedy happened during the night of 21st and had caused Ryder to relapse and be able to see no one. At this point Ryder's voice came on the line scalding the switchboard operator she wasn't meant to tell people that. A situation I believe is described as speak to extension exchange held.

Not only was Ryder there at the time of the tragedy it seems likely that she phoned Matron McGILL's NZ GP practice. What was that doing open in the middle of the night you may ask ? Thing is those New Zealanders are about half a day ahead of us. The GP practice open Saturday to lunchtime. Which rather implies that Ryder, with the medical support of a police surgeon possibly propping her flu ridden form up, wanted to get some insight into Matron McGILL's medical record.

At about midnight to 2 AM 22.1.72 UK time. This would be after Matron McGILL acquired ileac crest bruising and tramline bruising and after her happy final chat with Leonard Cheshire then ?

Assuming then that an incident of immersion and bruising had transpired it would be consistent with a volunteer residential student aide debussing on the hurry up to seek shelter for the night at his closed Cambridge university lodgings ? Where he arrived "Wet through and highly distraught" according to the lodgings keeper. But this aspect never featured in inquest evidence.

That student aide did tell the inquest he was not at breakfast at the Sue Ryder Home on the morning of 22.1.72. Perhaps HM the Coroner inferred that the fellow must have been sleeping soundly in his Sue Ryder quarters so comfy he overslept ? But luckily at 2 PM at his volunteer duty in the kitchen Jeremy and Elixabeth Cheshire excitedly rushed in (aged 8 and 10) to tell him there is a dummy in the boat house.

His response is to go to the grounds and realise this is in fact a body. And such was the urgancy of this 2 PM discovery police would have to be called. But he did not tell HM Coroner that police were called at 3.40 PM actually a couple of minutes after he was fetched to the grounds to stand by the body to indicate it to police.

A bright chap but it seems he was an outpatient and occasional in patient of Fulbourne mental hospital. And perhaps, if that is true, he did not realise that when he pointed the Cavendish Pc at the body the Pc would instantly attribute the identification by hearsay to him. In fact he never saw the body other than facedown laying on ground at the side of the lake and had never formally identified and was not qualified to do so.

I think the Committee can deduce enough now.

And I can furnish copies of inquest testimony and the exhibit report aimed at quashing the suicide verdict.

I don't know if there are any authorities for a test of beyond reasonable doubt (The standard for suicide or unlawful killing verdicts) but I would put money the inquest procedures on Matron McGill (drowned SR Home Jan 1972) and Stefania Bronk (Died from overdose whilst drowning face down in bath at the SR Home July 12972) would not meet such standards.

I mentioned Stephen Lawrence. Baroness FRos Howells was with a race relations group and special advisor to Doreen Lawrence. During the Lawrence media campaign I spoke with Ros on the phone. And her words on being told about the McGILL Decd case stay with me "What Suffolk Police did in the McGILL case was far far far worse than anything Met did in the Lawrence case"

Was Doreen lied to that her son died of natural causes?

was only a short hospital autopsy (with no forensic) done in the Lawrernce case ?

Was the inquest held in secret without Doreen's knowledge ?

Was the body cremated before Doreen could avail rights of full forensic pathology and autopsy ?

was Doreen denied rights to legal representation at inquest by the inquest being in secret ?

So I agree with Baroness Howells. This is a far far far worse case of police conduct than the Stephen Lawrence case.

We now have a situation with Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire Homes in which papal knight Jimmy savile can be investigated but aspiring catholic saints Cheshire and Ryder are protected from inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Pebbles left an annotation ()

Richard,

After reading your many numerous FOI requests which, quite frankly, verge on disturbing and pointless, I have come to the conclusion that you are a massive drain on taxpayer funds.

I would like to see you slapped with an injunction so that the good people in various government departments do not have to waste their valuable time and our taxes with your 'campaign'.

Go find a new hobby please, preferably one that involves long walks on short piers.

Good day.

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Thank you for your anonymous input. I must point out this is a permanent FOI site. Not a blog.

In 1971/72 a Welsh Regional Crime Squad Det sgt was investigating aliens registrations of careworkers sponsored to UK by Leonard Cheshire Homes.

This is a routine inquiry conducted for Home Office.

But he escalated inquiry to look at death registration practices. He then encountered Special Branch. And the whole public interest constitutional issue, that is a theme of all my FOIs, is repreented in that conflict.

The Regional Crime Squad man was a sworn constable. His duty under the Crown. His master the law itself as a ministerial officer loyal to HM The Queen sole authority for justice.

Special Branch officers are in law of exactly the same Crown status.

No man can serve two masters. Special Branch served anonymous civil servants in the Home Office.

But the Regional Crime Squad man honoured his oath and defied them and served only the Crown and his only master the law itself.

I understand that he died and received a suicide verdict.

Had he lived perhaps he would now have collected a couple of commendations for lifelong honour of the constable oath. Like me.

Best wishes

Dear Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,

Please respond to the FOI application.

A fundamental issue is the Crown Authority for the administration of justice. The Queen, by Coronation Oath, became sole fount of justice in mercy.

Constables take an oath, based in part on the Parable of the Talents (Use of all skill), to well and truly serve the Queen.

The constable swears to discharge his duty faithfully only unto law. That is a Judge in Open Court surely NOT a Government Law Officer who shrouds himself in secrecy.

The Queen is guarantor of right of peace and the representative of the people in guaranteeing that no one (including Government and apprentice saints Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder) can be above the law.

When a conflict arises between a constable and a govt law officer. When a conflct arises between The New Zealand Govt and the British Govt (Bearing in mind that you are recognised by New Zealand as their supreme court) by what logic and law can a secret decision of UK Govt law officer take precedence over the Crown and the New Zealand Govt ?

Into this mix is the added ingredient that secrets of UK Govt Law Officers might foreseeably enable a Catholic saint making process.

By that time there could be King Charles Defender of Faiths (Plural). So where would that leave govt law officers ?

"We protected one of the faiths you protect sir from the truth that should properly be known to them ?"

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,

I have not received a response yet to my FOI application which raises important constitutional issues around the authority of your body and whether the Attorney General can hey will nilly usurp your authority.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Paul Brigland, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Dear Mr Card,

 

Thank you for your emails of 1^st and 28^th February, and of 29^th March.

 

Having read your emails, I am afraid that I cannot see anything that
constitutes a valid FOI request.  I am unable to respond to your enquiries
under the terms of the FOI Act.

 

I should point out that the FOI Act can only be used to access recorded
information held by a public body.  It cannot be used to obtain opinion,
conjecture or legal advice.

 

I am sorry that I am unable to help you on this occasion.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Paul Brigland

 

Paul Brigland| Head of ICT Services & Departmental Records Officer  |
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom & the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council | Parliament Square | London | SW1P 3BD

* email: [1][JCPC request email] | ( telephone: +44 (0)20
7960 1983 | [mobile number]

 

show quoted sections

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

It is clear from this FOI that Mr Card seeks help and guidance in bringing transparency to a number of issues and that he is possibly attempting to do this whilst in poor health?

Surely, you have a Duty of Candour to attempt to progress aspects of this FOI Paul Brigland| Head of ICT Services & Departmental Records Officer rather than just side-line a complex inquiry from a former Police Constable (who has ethics) and was witness to a series of events that suggest a clumsy coverups behind a possible cycle of murders?

Is not the fact that a Funeral Directors is turning down work an alarm bell?

@magnacarta300

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Thanks Fiona

On 18th November the senior HM Coroner Southwark should be reviewing the 1995 child patient death at Guys Hospital during rogue faults on the hospital backup power system made by Petbow (Cummins) of Kent. Power was cut to post op life support causing the child patient death.

The area commander in Met was former Kent ACC Sir Ian Johnstone. Who in 1989 in Kent was ACC Ops when terrorists blew up Deal Royal Marines Barracks killing 11 Royal Marines. In 1988 and pre bombing 89 we gave Kent Police security warnings on Deal Barracks. Among those lines of inquiry and crime complaints Kent Police nil actioned was sabotage and company fraud at Petbow naming GUYS as a suspect target site.

Johnstone was also from 94 in charge of Lawrence case. In 94 Det sgt Davidson was disciplined for moonlight bodyguard work on police time. But questions who sourced his work ?? mmmm could it have been the bodyguard company based at Croydon which had been created by unlawful use of Deal Royal Marines Barracks ?

I want linked Article 2 inquests for the 11 Royal Marines and for the Guys child patient. But I won't hold my breath waiting for HM Coroner to support an application for art 2 inquests to Attorney General.

As far as I know the less than impressive Southwark HM Coroner 1995 who handed down a non blaming misadventure verdict on child death was the same chap who delivered a narrative verdict, beyond the evidence, re Stephen Lawrence.

Kind regards Richard Card