Dear Kent Police,

From 1960 to the present please disclose the details of actions and/or arrests made under EITHER

(1) The Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 OR

(2) Section 2 of the Public Order Act 1936

How many applications under the 1936 Act have been made to Attorney General and what were the results (The Attorney General consent or refusal to allow charges)

In particular please address, within your response these three matters:

(1) The complaints of Brigadier Mike HARVEY circa 81/82 concerning military training activity based at Deal Royal Marines Barracks. Which we now know, from secretary of State for Defence, in fact had no Crown Authority.

(2) The complaint in Kent coincident with the above, of live rounds being posted to certain Kent residents as part of threats. This threat activity allegedly associated with either expulsions from BNP or refusals of BNP membership on the alleged basis that the members/applicants had been involved in paramilitary training contrary to both the above acts. (Using Kent woodland for unlawful paramilitary training)

(3) The arrests of about 21 members of 14 Platoon, V Queens V TAVR Broadstairs 1987. In this case was the decision not to charge taken in secret under the 1936 Act by the Attorney General (Government decision in secret) or by the Police and CPS under the 1819 Act (Crown decision ?

You have previously failed to answer questions of what Crown Authority Kent Adventure Training Corps had to conduct military training. For your information, thanks to the Facebook Page of James Shortt the leader of the above Deal Barracks training activity 1975 to 82, it is now known that former Kent adventure Training Corps leadership dine with Mr Shortt at his annual function "Russian Summer Ball".

Inevitably then I must ask if Shortt was a keyholder at the barracks. How long has he known Kent Adventure Training Corps leaders. Whether the Kent Adventure Training corps leader on Reliance Security team 1989 may reasonably be susopected of having actual or third party contact with duplicate keys. And why, when I raised inquiry with REME manning and records, they called in MOD Police concerning the question of whether this Reliance Guard had gained the work by using a bogus REME Record of Service. And why Kent Police made no inquiry of REME Records and Manning themselves ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Card,
 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST 12/09/592
 

Thank you for your request received by Kent Police on the 22 September
2012. 

 

As stated within the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we will endeavour to
provide a response promptly and in any event within the statutory
twenty day deadline, the twentieth working day being the 19 October 2012.

 

Your interest in Kent Police is appreciated and pending a specific
response to your request, I enclose a sheet, which summarises your
rights. Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter,
please write or contact me on telephone number 01622 654413 quoting the
reference number above.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Charlotte Pickin 

 

Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services Department
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 652029
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Card,
 
With reference to the Freedom of Information request that we received from
you on 22 September 2012, please find attached the response letter.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services Department
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 652029
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Dear Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

It is clear that Kent Police do not wish to answer this public interest question. They have never before been asked whether the Attorney General was involved in refusing Kent Police the authority to prosecute the 21 arrested Territorial Army men in 1987.

The fact is that in 1987 Kent Police gave a press release, broadcast on Invicta radio, that they had wished to prosecute the paramilitaries within TA but had been undermined by the Army.

It was Kent Police decision to conduct further inquiries in 1987 AFTER the decision not to prosecute had been broadcast.

Were these further inquiries for Army Intelligence at Ashford ? If so Kent Police was breaching its oath to the Queen. And we were seeing secret policing.

As part of co-operating with further inquiries crime complaints were made:

(1) Of sabotage of backup generators consistent with Stage 3 of the terrorist strategy of IRA the Garland Plan.

(2) of obtaining employ by the deceptive use of forged Army records to gain work with Reliance Security at Deal Royal Marines Barracks

(3) Of making approaches to Kent mines trying to acquire mining explosives and detonators

Kent Police refused to record the crime complaints and the FACT of security warning on Deal barracks was left out of the Admiralty Board of Inquiry report on the later IRA bombing that killed 11 Royal Marines at Deal Barracks.

The way life is arranged is that to the laymen truth emerges iteratively over years.

Kent Police in 2003 were provided evidence that the alleged saboteur (1 above) was a long term associate of one of the arrested TA paramilitaries whose associate was the guard who had allegedly obtained employ by deception at Deal barracks.

The FACT is that Kent Police Authority in 1987 did not believe the pursuit of truth to be vexatious. they called on their Chief constable for inquiry and report. and the Chief constable refused to answer his own Police Authority.

For many years Kent Police said there was no need to investigate the keyholder history of the barracks. it later emerged that such a keyholder was a bogus former SAS man who had risen (whilst exempted proper Kent Police inquiry) to the giddy heights of cabinet security.

It later emerged that this bogus former SAS man wasor is indeed an associate of the persons subject of refused crime complaint in 87.

All Kent Police are being asked here is who took the decision not to prosecute paramilitaries from Kent TA. CPS or Attorney General.

the fact that Kent Police feel harassed does not imply that they are being harassed. The Common Law makes it mandatory that I pursue them for answers.

The fact is Kent Police, like naughty little children, have but one response which is to keep silent and strike out at anyone with the effrontery to try calling them to book.

What is needed is a retrospective Article 2 Inquest for the 11 Royal Marines who were murdered at Deal Barracks 1989.

And the test can now be applied. Do you think that in a duty to determine if the state failed to protect life the HM Coroner would require the answers ? And would Kent Police then try telling HM Coroner they refuse to answer because he is being vexatious ?

Nonetheless their various ad hominem fallacy attempts to maintain silence is as eloquent a response as will be seen.

Article 2 inquest re Deal bombing 1989 ? Even Gerry Adams seems to support this cause. Why I wonder ? What if the IRA did not do it ??

Let us also remember that just one year after the bombing the EU passed a resolution on member states to investigate and dismantle all unlawful military organisations. Belgium Senate complied. But the Deal barracks lines of inquiry that arose in the Belgian inquiries were not pursued in UK.

Kent Police so far have had their cake and eat it. When General De Chasterlain checked his arms decommissioning terms of reference with a view to investigating in Kent including at Kent Police firearms certificate issue history, he appears to have been told that the paramilitary arrests in case were beyond his jurisdiction because the arrested men were protected by being security personnel. IE Authorized by the Crown.

Well that held off the Arms Decommissioners.

But asked publicly for the reasons for the arrests and the manner in which nil prosecution decisions were reached Kent Police take the "No shan't tell you" line.

So what did Kent Police tell author Pat Monteath then ? That the nil prosecution decision was taken in public interest. But now asked by whom CPS or Attorney General they won't answer.

If it was CPS then why did they file a report on these matters to be held against Kent Police ever bring charges against those who bombed Deal Barracks.

It is extremely regrettable in UK to expose a police force for the attitude that seeking justice for the deaths of 11 Royal Marines is vexatious.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Kent Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Kent Police's handling of my FOI request 'Unlawful and Quasi Military Drilling in Kent'.

In 1972 I was appointed Pc HM Coroners Officer for the sudden death of Matron Mary McGILL of the Sue Ryder Home Cavendish Suffolk.

My legal advice was that, upon resigning from Suffolk Police, I would retain the Crown Office of Constable and be bound by my oath unto death.

Over the years since 1972 new evidence has become known to me.

And with much disquiet I have observed a large number of decisions purportedly taken in the public interest.

The decisions not to investigate, to block access to High Court and to refuse to record crime complaints.

I have observed that there is a common factor running through what may at first appear to be disparate matters.

The pattern is of the Trustees of the Sue Ryder charity, MI6 officers, being above the law. Ironically another charity founder Lord Denning was the Judge who re-iterated the principle that no matter how high you are the law must be above you.

One such trustee was Harry Sporborg founder of Gladio.

Another trustee was Airey Neave who actually lectured 23 SAS in my area of interest asymmetric warfare by sabotage.

Neave allegedly used a paramilitary recruiter/organiser called Colonel Robert Butler. It is quite simple Why did case officer DI George ROGERS in 1987 make inquiries after the decision not to charge the 21 arrested TA paramilitaries. Who put Neave related questions to him to put to me and to whom did he convey the answers ?

Obviously I also want to know who took the public interest decision not to charge the paramilitaries.

In Kent we are clearly seeing extraordinary policing decisions and activity which is consistent with protecting the activity of Sporborg and the then late Neave from proper inquiry.

In Gwent in 1972 a Regional Crime Squad sergeant was threatened to drop inquiries into Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire and their charity. He was threatened by Special Branch. He honoured his oath of office and defied them. He died and attracted a suicide verdict.

But that was a CONSTABLE honouring his oath unto death.

In Gwent the Special Branch suspects for allegedly sabotaging torpedos and sonar made for RN was GLADIO.

You know that I found a prosaic technical reason for Plessey weapon and sonar unreliability. You also know my findings were agreed by MOD experts. Yet for some reason you would not relate the Gwent suspects list to sabotage of backup generators made in Kent.

You also would not respond to EU calls for inquiry into GLADIO of 1990. The Belgian senate inquiry into 24 terrorist murders had clear evidential links to the history of Deal Royal Marines barracks. Yet you covered up.

You would not comply with a call in 1997 from your own police authority to raise inquiries and report.

A simple request. Who took the public interest decision not to charge the 21 TA paramilitaries in 1987 and for whom (what agency) did Kent Police make further inquiries after the public interest nil action decision was taken.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/un...

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Giovanni CACCIACARRO PSE 57427,

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Card,
 
I acknowledge your request for an internal review and will write again
once it is complete.
 
Regards,
 
 
Mr Giovanni Cacciacarro
Freedom of Information Advisor
Legal Services Department
Kent Police Headquarters
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ
[1][email address]
Tel: 01622 652668

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Card,
 
Please find attached our internal review as requested.
 
Regards,
Giovanni Cacciacarro
 
 
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services Department
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 652029
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Dear Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,
Thank you for your response. I have made the applications to the Attorney General and await response.

I wish you to clarify a point in your statement. If, as you state, Kent Police had investigated these matters as "Historic inquiry" then you are saying, are you not, that James SHORTT's bogus SAS status was known to your force from say 1981 ?

Or 1982 when Brigadier Harvey made his reports of concern ?

In either event you appear to be stating that your force had knowledge of his bogus SAS, Unlawful Drilling and Deal Barracks keyholder status before the 1987 paramilitary arrests case in Kent TA, before the 1989 terrorist bombing of Deal barracks and before the 1990 EU Resolution to investigate and dismantle unlawful paramilitary groups (especially GLADIO).

IF your position is that Kent Police did not investigate and did not know these things then your response under reply must be factually incorrect ?

So please review again and establish a factual rather than a self pitying paranoid and ad hominem fallacy basis for your FOI review response there's a good chap.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

I would add that rather than feeling harassed (boo hoo) that you apply the test of what questions an HM Coroner at a retrospective Article 2 Inquest would REQUIRE you to answer. re the terrorist murder of 11 Royal Marines whose rights to fair Article 2 inquest extend to 2069 ?

Interestingly whilst supporting the cause of the Ballymurphy massacre 1971 to an Article 2 Inquest Gerry Adams seems supportive too of the idea that the 11 Royal Marines killed at Deal 1989 should gain an Article 2 inquest.

"Historically" your force has pursued a fallacy convenient to its own purposes. The fallacy that a breach of security warning is only valid if it points to an eventual perpetrator. This is a fallacy convenient to support the bogus position of accusing complainers of being conspiracy theorists and harassers.

A hole in the perimeter wall is a valid security warning without it being a bricklayer who eventually blows up the barracks eh ?

So please straighten up your logic and law a tad.

These responses to you are now a permanent record on internet.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org