Who protects those who commit serious Fraud in order to pervert justice?

The Fraud Act of 2006 provides guidance on the definitions of fraud

For instance
Researchers paid millions from the public purse who then ignore vital evidence in order to call for more research funds are committing fraud.
Doctors who produce false reports in order to disadvantage patients are committing fraud.
Scientists who deny what they know regarding adverse effects of chemicals are committing fraud.
Insurers who force the insured to deny liability when they know they are liable are committing fraud.
Those who claim that the known adverse effects of poisons are "all in the mind" are committing fraud.
Those whoi try to underrmine the reputations of others using false information are committing fraud.
Lawyers who do not properly represent their clients are committing fraud.

Interestingly anyone who knows that criminal actions have occurred but who fails to report such offences is also committing a criminal act.

There are no time limits as regards prosecution for criminal actions.

The following information was provided to the Serious Fraud Office and to other organisatiuons supposedly responsible for investigating fraud and prosecuting offenders.

"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" Walter Scott.

When these fraudulent actions are employed to undermine otherwise viable court cases such people are also perverting justice and may well be charged with perjury.

Condoned corruption and serious fraud

For the attention of the Serious Fraud Office,
Elm House,
10-16 Elm Street,
London, WC1X 0BJ

29th February 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

Try as I might I am unable to see how the claims that we are all equal under the law and that no one is above the law fits with the experiences of thousands of us who have faced gross deception and injustice simply because the truth could costs companies and government a great deal of money.
Like many others in a similar position I am disabled and virtually housebound but have tried all that I know to find a way to escape the corruption with no success. At every stage the falsehoods are reintroduced to bring us down.

The Police inform me that Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law act 1967 as amended by Schedule 7 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. "creates the offence of persons concealing the fact that relevant offences have been committed and not revealing the fact because they have been offered money or some other consideration for not doing so".
However despite listing a dozen potential criminal offences involved they refused repeatedly to even investigate, claiming falsely that the issue had already been extensively "judicially explored" when in fact the deception prevented the issues from being aired properly by the judiciary and later when even more evidence came to light even by Judicial Review, despite a statement witnessed by the High Sheriff of the Isle of Wight.(123 below)

There were over a thousand High Court legal cases with many more in the wings before deception was used to destroy those cases. Just 13 of us were left when the group action was finally destroyed on the grounds that there were too few cases and insufficient evidence to warrant a trial - even though a single case had already been successful. Many had been forced through dangerous expensive medical procedures only to have the results hidden from the courts.
The BBC reported that the action had cost in the region of 35 million. The lawyers (see 47) suggested that the defence costs alone were 10.000.000 but the fraud goes deeper as DWP staff were also involved with the costs of bonus payments for falsely denying cause of illness and benefits paid to those who were unable to gain compensation, plus legal aid costs paid to legal firms who had failed to represent the cases properly. The various appeal processes will have increased that figure dramatically to the advantage those companies involved in the decision making process. All could have been avoided had there not been gross deception from the outset.
Even the Fraud Act of 2006 states that the definition of fraud includes falsely claiming mental illness in order to cause loss to others and those losses are considerable, often including livelihoods, marriages, homes, pensions and savings.

Sadly the cause of all that grief is one that could affect any one of us given that exposures to those chemicals can be via diet, environment, or even a simple flight in an aircraft, and the basis for that risk is also found in the fraudulent provision of safety data designed to ensure continued use of the products so as to profit industry.

It was reported in the Daily Mail on Saturday 14 January 2012 that some 29 Home Office Officials had been sent to prison for varying terms after being convicted of criminal offences connected to their work, which were described as being "misconduct in public office".
I have tried to discover who, or what authority, instigated the investigation into those officials with no success.

Chris Huhne MP has been charged with the serious offence of perjury in regards to the dishonest claims made over relatively minor driving offences in order to escape having just three points added to his Driving Licence.
In the past even Police Officers have been convicted and sent to prison for similar relatively minor offences. Now A4e is also under investigation for fraud but Atos are still employing dubious tactics to deny people their benefits.

I wonder if you would agree with me that perjury with intent to pervert the Course of Justice in a High Court action which cost the tax-payer millions and left the plaintiffs without access to justice and left those lucky enough, even if disabled, to survive their ordeal dependent upon State benefits is a much more serious offence.

If you do agree would you please be kind enough to let me know who to approach in order to instigate a proper investigation into the perjury, fraud and perversion of justice involved.
If you cannot agree with me perhaps you would be kind enough to give your reasons and to say what steps you would have taken if by some sad chance you and your family were faced with a similar dilemma.
I well remember being threatened with prosecution by various Government agencies even though I was the only person giving truthful and fact-based statements.
It should be noted that in all aspects of these cases there was no need to prove criminality, which has never been tested in court, since in civil cases there is merely the need to prove a case "on the balance of probability" - more likely than not.
This point actually compounds the fraud since there really was no need for any deception.

For your interest I have pasted below a brief history of just one of the cases in which this perversion of justice has probably been most blatant. There are many more and there were at least thousand cases before the courts when the worst of the perjury and perversion of justice took place. Each case involved losses of hundreds of thousands of pounds and in the case below compensation calculations for the court were over 800,000 while the costs to the NHS and DWP have been many times that.

I apologise for the length of this email but I feel that this is a vitally important issue for our democratic process, the health of our people, and to help reduce the cost to the state of the resulting ill health that triggers great costs to the NHS, the Courts, the benefits agency and in loss of skilled workers and their family and social lives.

It is of interest that the Permanent People's Tribunal found that Human Rights abuses and denial of justice was a feature internationally in these cases and although there is much talk in the press and in Parliament about the Human Rights act it should be remembered that the UK is part of the United Nations and therefore signed up both to that charter and to the EU convention, which it helped to bring into law!

The UN states that

Access to justice and fair treatment

4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.
5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.......

The officials of the UK Government stand accused of being in breach of their duty to truth and justice and there is not an organisation in the country that dares to do anything about those abuses.
If you would kindly read the following details and the comments at 134 below perhaps you could advise me as to which authority has the power to prosecute the long list of offenders who have colluded together and used gross deception and perversion of justice to defraud the innocent.

I tried, oh how I tried, to avoid all the costs to myself and to the state by reporting at all stages to the authorities.
Sadly blind eyes were turned at every stage leaving me certain that the deception perjury, fraud, and perversion of justice are not merely condoned but are encouraged at the highest levels in our society. Perhaps you can help clean up this mess? I hope so.

**********

An outline of the history of a case of illegal Pesticide Poisoning and the involvement of Government officials in hiding the truth.

1. Summer 1991 A farmer allowed a dangerous and excess mix of chemicals to be produced by his workers. Regulations state that no two anticholinesterase chemicals are permitted to be mixed together. Later, in 2001, it was discovered that two organophosphorus insecticides with that property had been in the mix with their co-formulants and solvents.
Some of that mix was used but a large volume was left in the tank.
There are specific regulations regarding the storage and disposal of these grain store chemicals.
Instead of following the regulations and disposing of the excess they stored it for 6 months.
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health and Use of Pesticides Regulations apply.

2. November 1991 The farmer took over a local farm and the former manager of that farm, herein referred to as "B", was employed by the new owner as a continuation of employment under the Transfer of Undertakings regulations but his status was reduced to general worker. With payments changed from weekly per hour worked to a reduced monthly salary with loss of other benefits.

3. January 1992 Contrary to the rules regarding disposal away from areas with access to the public or drains the farm reportedly "always" dumped any excess chemical in the farmyard and this caused the incident in which B was exposed to the dangerous cocktail of chemicals when the liquid created in 1 above was released on to the ground in the farmyard.
Specific rules for grain store chemicals require any excess to be sprayed onto the structure of buildings and not released to ground, drains or soak-away
The Health & Safety at Work Act applied.

No warnings were given and no protective clothing was offered to B, who had a long history of exposures to the chemicals in the mixture, and had suffered previous reactions, as he reported.
B was exposed both to the liquid and then to the vapours for several days until the toxic level became so great that he could no longer work. B recognised one of the chemicals by its smell and realised that it should never have been in the sprayer at that time. It would not be until 2001 that B would obtain the information about the mix of chemicals to which he was exposed in the incident despite repeated requests verbally and in writing to the employer and staff relayed from doctors by B - and this despite his rights to that information as an employee under the COSHH regulations.

4. Doctors and specialists knew little about the effects of pesticides. Medical investigations failed initially to find the cause and B was treated with drugs which were contraindicated in poisoning and therefore worsened his medical condition. Doctors were notified of the pesticide use but they did not know what symptoms the chemicals caused and the treatment had therefore been for the presented symptoms and not for the poisoning. Treatments worsened Bs condition as a result.

5. June 1992. With Doctors baffled B asked the Health and Safety Executive for advice but the information provided was incomplete and misleading. B was told that if he did not report the incident he could face prosecution but he had no evidence and so stated that all he needed was information.

6. August 1992. Poisoning was suspected. Blood and urine samples were taken to check cholinesterase levels and B was referred to the Poisons Unit at Guys Hospital in London. B was then informed that if he did not report the matter to the Health & Safety Executive then he would face prosecution. The employer was told by his insurers not to report the incident but B sent a photocopy of his report to the HSE and warned that illegal mixes were suspected to be involved. B asked HSE to assist him.
B was dismissed from his work and the time of his dismissal backdated by a month with lost pay.
B remained in the tied cottage but paying rent to the former employer under statutory tenancy.

7. September 1992. Eventually B was referred to the National Poisons Units Dr Virginia Murray, who confirmed symptom consistency with poisoning and said that further urgent investigation by five specialists was required. She stated that B's previous exposures had altered the way B's body responded to the poisons and insisted on the Health & Safety Executive being informed as an investigation into the incident was vital. Cholinesterase tests were done.

8. The employer told B that his staff would lie about the incident. HSE contacted the employer and were indeed lied to but they accepted the lies as fact and reported that they had closed the investigation.
B did not realise that the HSE had already telephoned the employer and that HSE had accepted the false statements given without proper investigation despite Bs pleas for assistance from HSE.

9. 8th February 1993 Unknown to B until 2007 the National Farmers Union Insurers produced a false statement by Mr Rex Humber, who frequently claimed not to be able to read or write, in declared efforts to prepare for litigation. The statement was later seen to be full of completely false and contradictory statements, which do not correlate with statements made by or to the HSE. Effectively denying that B was involved in the incident and claiming among other falsehoods that there was no chemical, that it had no smell, and that the liquid ran away from B when it was released. At other times he had claimed that there was no liquid in the tank.

10. B was granted Incapacity Benefit and the examiner stated in writing that B was a very ill man and that his symptoms were entirely of physical cause with OP poisoning the probable diagnosis.
Note that this information was withheld by the Benefits Agency until B requested the papers held on him under the Data Protection Act a decade later.

11. June 1993 With no action from the HSE, and still none of those urgent investigations, B was advised by a senior lecturer in health and safety to contact the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding HSE failures.
HSE claimed that B could not have been poisoned because there was no incident and therefore no exposure but the Poisons Unit again confirmed symptoms consistent with poisoning after a further examination in June to ensure that his symptoms fitted the criteria for the very expensive tests planned for those who had been poisoned by organophosphorus pesticides.

12. July 1993 B was admitted as an inpatient for two weeks for tests, including psychiatric assessment, in a dental surgery ward at Guy's Hospital, London.
Evidence of respiratory restriction, heart abnormalities, cognitive defects, visual and neural defects and autonomic nervous system problems etc. was found. Cholinesterase and other blood tests were done.

A Dr David Moore, said to be from Fort Detrick in the USA, was involved with the testing and reporting on this case.
Why were the military involved?
The toxicologist Dr Virginia Murray appeared to be under Dr Glyn Volans and it was clear that they now had an Organophosphorus Team, apparently funded by four unnamed sources quote from Dr Murray.
(Later knowledge of both the tests and funding were denied in a Parliamentary answer)
Dr Moore was not accurate in his reporting and even reported dishonestly at times.
The most serious involved a day in which respiratory function was tested. The first run of tests obtained figures that were too far below those recognised by the computer programming. It was then necessary for B to take a full days dose of Ventolin inhaler before repeating those tests. The figures then obtained were sufficient for the computer and the next stage was achieved successfully.
Then Dr Moore extracted an arterial blood sample from deep in Bs elbow joint. Another sample was to be taken after the exercise test but things were to turn out differently. Discussions determined the maximum heart rate and minimum oxygen saturation to be permitted during the test but both limits were exceeded long before they allowed the test to end. B was seen to sweat profusely and for all the muscles in his body, including his diaphragm, to go into dangerous tremors. The staff tried to contact their seniors within the hospital with no luck and Dr Moore attempted several times to obtain the second arterial blood sample, digging into both elbows and both wrists with a syringe.
Some time later two members of staff assisted B back to the ward. The ward sister was concerned.
Dr Moore wrote in his report that the test had been Normal.
The date of the administration of the inhalers was given as the day before the actual test was performed.
No medical records for that day were ever released, despite the mass of data collected.

13. In the meantime B was granted Incapacity Benefit and highest-level mobility allowance, later granted "for life".
He had been told repeatedly that his symptoms were caused by the incident and the exposure to the Organophosphorus compounds involved.

14. December 1993 Dr Moore and Dr Murray now claimed that the symptoms of chronic OP poisoning were not those officially recognised in MS17. They say it is being re-written.
They deny the risk of ingesting OPs, and say that although Bs symptoms were consistent with acute poisoning they could not diagnose chronic OP poisoning at that time but that they might be able to in 2 years time.

Dr Murray also denied dishonestly that the eye was a route for OPs into the body.
Both she and Dr Moore claimed that radiation was safe.
B suggested that Marie Curie would not agree. A Dr Chia sat quietly taking notes - he was later used as a scapegpoat.
There was a suggestion made that B's condition was the result of a "recent" infection of Coxackie B virus, which is in fact a short-lived virus, and that this was proven by blood tests.
However in papers later released it became apparent that at the time the hospital claimed to have taken a blood sample from B he was actually at home asleep in bed.
B reported the production of a false blood test to various bodies but his reports were ignored.
Coxsackie B was then used as a reason for B's prolonged and ongoing illness despite the evidence of poisoning.
The Poisons Unit advised Bs GP to treat with low-dose anti-depressants, not for depression but to ease the symptoms but these were also known to be contraindicated and made Bs condition worse.
It was later reported that both Dr Murray and Dr Volans had links to the chemical manufacturers and that their laboratory was funded by same.

15. February 1994 The Ophthalmologist at Guys finally used the correct tests and confirmed the reported vision problems.
He stated that B had optic nerve, brain and autonomic nervous system damage and that it was out of his field and that B would be referred back to a neurologist. The referral never came and the appointment designed to ensure that the visual fields had not deteriorated further was later cancelled.

16. May 1994 B was granted Legal Aid with Martyn Day of Leigh Day & Co named as solicitor for case. Although B did not know the unqualified legal clerk Alan Care was running the case as if he was a solicitor.
Bs GP obtained a second medical opinion again supporting the poisoning diagnosis.

B was then advised to apply for Industrial Injury Benefit as the Prescribed Disease C3 and it was then that his real problems began. The Poisons Unit wanted B to endure more tests but his GP refused to allow it saying that they were using B for research purposes and not for his clinical need.

17. July 1994 In HSE internal documents an EMAS Doctor stated "There is simply no evidence of illness"

18. August 1994 The Parliamentary Ombudsman believed the lies told by HSE and failed to uphold Bs complaint despite the advice to complain coming from a senior lecturer in health and safety.
B reported the HSEs dishonesty to the Ombudsman to no avail. B was advised to seek legal help.

19. September 1994 St Thomas Hospital refused to use the correct vision tests and claimed that there was no problem - in direct opposition to Guy's ophthalmologist who confirmed on 9/2/94 visual defects due to brain, optic nerve and autonomic nervous system damage. Despite the fact that the tests were supposed to monitor the visual field changes the procedure used was incorrect and there were no records on hand - only a letter to the optician from Glyn Volans.
B was told that if he went to see them a thousand times he would still be told that there was nothing wrong.

20. 27th November 1994 Writ served on Employer for negligence.

NOTE from this point on all officials involved asked for and received permission to access medical records to which B was denied full access, despite repeated requests from himself and lawyers.
As a result they ALL had access to the cholinesterase tests performed at 6, 7, and 12 above. Despite this they all denied that evidence of poisoning and demanded further evidence.

21. 2nd December 1994 Glyn Volans controversially withdrew the Poisons Units diagnosis. Unknown to B at the time he wrote two letters of opposite opinion about the same case on the same day. He withdrew even the symptom consistency claim to Bs GP, as a direct consequence of the Ombudsmans support of the HSE, and this was the only letter seen by B. Unknown to B or his GP Volans also wrote to the Benefits Agency and confirmed the diagnosis. He also wrote to HSE same day explaining what he had done and suggesting that B should have been seen more by their psychiatrist. Volans used a Dr Chia as the scapegoat for this action when in fact Dr Chia had never been involved except to be present once with Moore and Murray in 1993 when they confirmed symptom consistency with OP poisoning.

22. 9th December 1994 Farmers Weekly reported the serving of the writ.
Internal documents from HSE show that a senior staff member referred the report to an EMAS doctor asking if he was going to Spike Bs guns with suggestions on the page that this referred to an Ombudsman case that had caused HSE much grief.
It was a clear incitement to pervert justice but was later referred to as a "joke" - but the action was taken.

23. 11th January 1995 Dr Crane of EMAS wrote that HSE could find no evidence of exposure or link with the illness to the incident.

24. January 1995 A DSS Medical Officer, Dr Howell, examined B at home and turned down his claim for Industrial Injury, Prescribed Disease C3 poisoning by organophosphorus pesticides.
This made B ask the Benefits Agency why and which doctors they had consulted.
This resulted in the DSS sending copies of letters received from Doctors. To Bs amazement there were the two letters written by Dr Volans on the same day, the 2nd December 1994. One was to Bs GP withdrawing the NPU diagnosis. The other was to the DSS and confirmed Bs eligibility for the benefit PDC3, Causative Agent 4 stating that medical science had been unable to find any alternative diagnosis and it was a genuine case.

It is now known that the employer had given false information to the Health & Safety Directorate and that the HSE had informed the NPU that B could not have been poisoned as there had been no incident. Evidence has recently come to light which proves that the HSE had not even bothered to investigate and had produced a fairy-tale scenario which they persist in promoting as the truth.
There is evidence within HSE internal documents that the HSE and Poisons Unit conspired to halt the court case and this is supported by a Dr Crane of EMAS letter stating that there had been no incident, which followed the Spike his guns comment.
B asked the DSS for information on PDC3 Causative Agent 4, mentioned as the cause by Dr Volans but did not receive the information until 1997. Presumably the delay was to deny B the knowledge that it was poisoning by organophosphorus pesticides for as long as possible. Dr Ringer was involved.

25. Spring and Summer1995 B appealed against the decision to deny benefit and there was a second medical in the local DSS offices. The named medical examiner did not arrive and the stand-in and Dr Kneen (sp?) seemed indifferent. It was an obvious sham, especially as she took the sight test board from the wall and held it before B's eyes to ask if he could read it.

The decision was again negative but the reasons were taken word for word from the first examiner's report. This was proven when a carbon copy was sent to B in the post and the typist asked for her file copy back. She admitted that the spelling errors were because she could not read the first examiner's writing. She even sent a pre-paid envelope for the return of the paper but received a photocopy. B appealed again.

This time the claim went to Tribunal but it was realised that all the sick notes referring to Chronic OP Poisoning, written by three different GPs, were missing, as were other important papers. Under pressure from a member of the House of Lords, a DSS staff member visited B's home and went through the papers ensuring that all the sick notes were included along with proof of continuation of employment and letters proclaiming his good health before the incident. B had, she said, convinced her but it was not her decision.

26. September 1995 B travelled to Glasgow to see Dr Jamal, an expert in OP poisoning. Bs friends said that the journey by train would kill him and paid for a flight and hotel accommodation. His GP insisted on oxygen availability and wheel chair assistance if needed. B would not be able to make such a trip today as his condition has worsened

26. October 1995 Bs case was set for court action within months in a 20 day trial before a judge.

27. November 1995 B is told that lawyers asked for 50,000 to fight his strong case but were turned down by the Legal Aid Board and had lost an appeal.
3rd November - Meeting HSE, EMAS, PIAP and unqualified clerk Alan Care, claiming to be a lawyer, at B's home.

Alan Care offered a settlement of 10,000 but benefit law change reduced that offer to 2,500.
B was told that the meeting was to establish the facts but internal documents released years later under the DPA show that HSE intended to end their involvement in the case without altering their stance.
Dr Jamal reported that he also believed that the exposures caused the illness but there were strange errors in the report and many incorrect claims could only have come from the Poisons Unit.
B asked for an explanation but no response was made. The HSE refused to recognise that independent diagnosis despite having access to the cholinesterase reports above and supporting medical opinion. Some Poisons Unit staff were part of both the HSE's Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel and employed by the chemical manufacturers.
The HSEs Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel twice refused to recognise the facts of the case, suggesting that poisoning was not even likely.
The Guys & St Thomas Trust refused to answer questions and were reported to the Ombudsman on the advice of Bs GP. HSE still ignored all those supporting medical opinions. The "Lawyer" Alan Care then withdrew his support suggesting 0% chance of success and told the Legal Aid Board that B had refused a reasonable offer and requested that the certificate be withdrawn.
B moved to new law firm, Dawbarns, and Richard Barr, who described the first firm as "Shysters" and said Bs case is very strong. He confirmed that the defence had made no settlement offer.

B requests again that they urgently obtain full medical records and the details of the chemicals to which B had been exposed.
Neither were ever done.

28. April 1996 Suddenly an Ian Harvey controls Bs case and he submitted the same false information to the legal Aid Board, resulting in loss of funding. B protests and appeals but his entitlement to Legal Aid is said to be conditional on the outcome of the Hill v Tomkins case, whose writ was served later than Bs.

29. October 1996 The Health Service Ombudsman upheld Bs complaint and requested that the matter was put right.
The Hospital refused and also refused to release the complete medical records to B despite telling Bs GP that they wanted to re-instate the poisoning diagnosis but dared not for fear of opening the floodgates and that If the men in white wigs get hold of this there will be all Hell to pay.
In other words theirs was a political and commercial decision and not a medical one.

30. June 1997 DSS tribunal for PDC3 benefit claim. DSS papers were not complete and were illegible.
The DSS spokesman declared that if the hearing was to continue and if B was successful they would immediately appeal on the grounds that their own papers were incomplete. B was very ill due to a combination of the perfumes, traffic fumes, travelling and trying to talk, which set his entire body into spasms and tremors. It happens often if he exerts himself too much at home and is a symptom of poisoning. B had suffered similar effects during the HSE meeting in his home.

B had to be assisted from the room. The DSS staff member was indifferent but said that there would be serious trouble when he returned to his office.
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that it was obvious that B was suffering from neurological symptoms, that a specialist neurological unit should examine him and that the next tribunal should be at his home with the DSS papers complete and legible.

It was specifically requested that the same tribunal members would be sitting at the next hearing as they had seen Bs condition first hand.

31. August 1997 The DSS arranged for B to be seen not by the Wessex Neurological Unit as ordered by the Tribunal, but by Dr Philip Kennedy, a neurologist with no sophisticated testing equipment, who obviously had no understanding of the subject and who had to refer to textbooks that only gave the acute symptoms.

B provided his usual detailed booklet outlining all symptoms, tests and diagnosis to date, including highlights of the internationally recognised symptoms. Dr Kennedys report was full of errors of fact, including false suggestions that there was no digestive system problem and that there were no prescription drugs from the GP despite regular prescriptions for antacids and inhalers etc.

Ignoring a written report from the GP and B's own detailed booklet of illness history, which demonstrated evidence of physical harm following exposures to OPs, he declared Somatisation Syndrome, even though Dr Kennedy himself reported some sensory loss as present in Bs limbs.

32. Meantime efforts to obtain the full medical records from Guy's & St Thomas Trust had failed.
Some 300 papers were finally released and they were sufficient to prove physical harm, but to this day in 2012, despite assistance from B's MPs and requests from various lawyers, vital papers have been withheld. The GMC refuse to say if this is to protect the doctors from potential criminal charges and have repeatedly refused to instigate an investigation into the deception used by various doctors.

33. October 1997. Eventually, after many postponed appeal dates, Legal Aid was re-instated, after the Hill case was won, but only as part of a sheep dip group action - despite protests. B must carry costs of that action but is not permitted to take part in the studies or benefit from any of that work. Very little is done to forward Bs case. Even the Legal Services Commission wrote that Bs case should not be in the group action but all efforts failed to extract it from the clutches of the group.
Effectively B was denied direct access to the Courts despite the unlawful acts involved in his employer negligence case whereas the Hill case proceeded to trial in his stead even though no illegal acts had taken place and he had pre-existing conditions.

34. 1998 Hodge Jones & Allen obtain all OP cases from Dawbarns. Henry Hodge's wife was in the Government. Henry Hodge was reported as being Vice-Chairman of Legal Aid Board.
Again lawyers were requested to obtain full medical records and name of chemicals involved. Again that vital work is not done.

A solicitor, Peter Bright, informed B that the lawyers had been instructed to find ways to limit the number of cases before the court. Eventually various spuriuous reasons were used to reduce the number from over a thousand first to 25 and then to just 13 cases.
Documents released later indicate internal advice that the Benefits Agency was on a losing wicket

35. January 1999 The Defence produce a report without realising that they were admitting the illegal mixing, storage and disposal of chemicals but, despite repeated requests for the information, B is not told and he did not have sight of the report until many years later.

36. July 1999 DSS Tribunal held at B's home with two unqualified representatives for B and three new Tribunal members. Again the DSS papers were incomplete but discussion over cost to the state of further delay resulted in agreement to proceed on condition that B could introduce medical and other supporting evidence. A statement was read, interrupted by a member with links to St Thomas' Hospital, of which the Poisons Unit were a part, and there was much discussion over which Industrial Disease should apply and the suggestion that B should apply for Severe Disability Allowance.

When B tried to introduce supporting medical evidence showing vision, heart, cognitive and respiratory abnormalities the St Thomas' linked member decreed that they were irrelevant and inadmissible.
The medical examination was also strange as the two medical members seemed unsure as to the real reflexes present and eye movement signs. They were surprised when B could not feel vibration in his ankles and he was surprised when he could not feel them in his forehead but B suspected trickery.

Later B was able to check the vibratory sense himself using hospital equipment and found that he could indeed feel nothing in his ankles. Pin-prick sensation tests were also very strange and the medical examiner pointed out that one end of the pin was actually blunt. As they left the Chairman declared that they found that in all OP, Gulf War and Vaccine damage cases it was difficult for the claimant to obtain medical records all such cases had Government as a potential defendant.

They said that their report would take time but that it would be worth the wait. In fact their report again denied that B was ill as the result of the poisons and proclaimed Somatisation Syndrome as the cause, falsifying specialist opinion and discounting others in order to achieve their desired decision.
B and his representatives were amazed at the decision and appealed again this time to a Commissioner.

37. September 1999 Solicitor Antonia Southern for Hodge Jones & Allen visited B and declared that they had obviously been misled over the facts of the case. She views the array of medicines and supporting paperwork and suggests that there were also serious breaches of Employment law involved.

38. October 1999 A fourth medical expert chosen by the Legal Services Commission, Dr Myhill, also produced a report supporting the poisoning diagnosis. The lawyers did not give the information on the mixture of chemicals used to the expert - nor the full medical records, although B supplied a few copies he had by then obtained as supporting evidence.
Later Dr Myhill's supporting medical reports were thrown out by the court on the false grounds that she was insufficiently qualified.

Still the HSE refused to recognise the facts.

39. October 1999 The solicitor Antonia Southern sent B copies of the court papers with damages claimed estimated at over 880,000
Despite yet another set of consent forms for access to medical records the solicitor wrote that the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow denied that B had ever attended despite holding a copy of Jamals report from that hospital.
No mention of any results from the Poisons Unit reached court.

40. March 2000 Hodge Jones & Allen wrote to B saying that they were stopping the case.

41. April 2000 Legal Aid Certificate discharged.

42. May 2000 B wrote in desperation to Judge Master Miller enclosing evidence and stating that lawyers were not acting properly and were refusing to submit supporting evidence.
Judge Miller telephoned B to thank him for the information - but failed to act on it.

43. June 2000 A restricted Legal Aid Certificate was issued but in the wrong name. B asked for ncorrections but later the certificate was withdrawn again but reinstated when claimed payment arrears were found to be due to their own name error.

44. July 2000 Hodge Jones & Allen sent an unsealed envelope claiming to be the full medical records from Guy's but they were actually copies of those papers sent to them in support of his case by B himself with his own marks on them. The lawyers had not obtained the full medical records.
The Data Protection Agency was notified of this breach of data security but refused to help.

45. August 2000 Hodge Jones & Allen attempted to persuade B to be examined yet again by medical personnel with links to the defence on two occasions but still refused to submit the evidence from the Poisons Unit. One case fell for the deception and received a damaging report while the "Shortened CV" sent out by the expert just happened to omit the period when he was working for one of the defendants.

46. September 2000 Statements by the defence prove to be false but evidence of perjury was ignored by Hodge Jones & Allen and the deception remained unchallenged.

47. October 2000 HJ&A failed to comply with court rules for submitting evidence and called a meeting of cases. Unable to attend B submitted questions via another case. The questions were not answered. HJ&A sent out "blackmail letters" Agree not to take any OP action for life or face full costs of defence, which may be in excess of 10,000,000. B refused to sign. The Judge was again informed.

48. November 2000 Legal Aid Certificate Discharged. B and others moved their cases to Gabb & Co.

49. December 2000 Liz Charles of Gabb & Co was asked to obtain medical records and chemical names both vital if any case is to succeed.

50. January 2001 B obtained internal HSE papers via Data Protection Act and reported evidence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
It is sent to the lawyers but they ignore it all.
Gabb & Co again claimed to be obtaining the medical records from the defendants.
The Health & Safety Inspector visited B's DSS claim representative's office for "an inspection".

51. February 2001 The representative and B prepared a new referenced statement for the DSS with 50 pages of supporting evidence. The representative took the papers away to photocopy five sets for the Court Hearing.
B appeared with his representative before Commissioner Henty in respect to the DSS benefit claim and the unlawful Tribunal of 1999. Suddenly the representative stated that B was representing himself.

B discovered that all the statement references and the 50 pages of evidence are missing from the file. He struggled on alone but was very ill. The Commissioner even offered to read the statement for B but there were errors in the statement and B had to continue.
The representative sat in virtual silence occasionally offering words of encouragement.

At one stage B showed a prescribed bottle of ant-acids, dated before the neurologists report, which alone proved beyond doubt that the statement upon which the State depended was grossly flawed.
The DSS barrister raised arguments against the numerous points of law but B was too ill to take notes.
The Commissioner refused to address the issue of Tribunal impartiality and conflict of interest and both the barrister and the representative lied when B asks if there were any points raised that he could not recall. The Commissioner walked out when B raised the issue of the rules of evidence.

The Commissioner supported the 1999 Tribunal even though he admitted that B was "exceedingly ill", stating that B was well-represented throughout and that the decision was one in which he should not interfere.
He upheld the Somatisation Syndrome claim, despite the mass of evidence against it.

52. March 2001 Gabb & Co claim that case is against wrong defendant and claim that they are unable to submit new evidence to the court.

53. April 2001 Gabb & Co suggests seeing another expert - again the expert is linked to the defence.

54. May 2001 Gabb &Co offer to give the defendants more time! Again the lawyers are asked to obtain vital medical records and the name of the chemical. Again they fail to do so.

55. June 2001 B is told that he must have agreed to a defence scientific report because he had not challenged it so he asked for that report and was at last sent a copy. Dated January 1999 the defence report admitted to the illegal mixing, storage and disposal of two OP chemicals and their solvents.

The Employer Negligence case should therefore be easily won.
The chemical names were admitted but the report was grossly flawed and factually inaccurate.
B wrote an 11-page criticism of the report and complained that the defence psychiatry expert had written a report despite the fact that he had never so much as spoken to B.
The false statements by the defence admitted to the influence of false HSE opinions and the two defence experts gave opinions based on selected information taken from the Guy's records.

56. Bs representatives appealed against the Commissioners decision on the grounds that they had all been misled, that new evidence proved that the incident had happened and that B was actually exposed to a dangerous and illegal mixture of two OP pesticides and their solvents for which even the manufacturers admitted in writing that the toxicity was unknown.
By now there was a further scientific opinion in support of the case from Vyvyan Howard but the Commissioner again dismissed Bs appeal suggesting that no mistakes had been made in his handling of the original appeal and that the 1999 Tribunal had acted lawfully.
He also stated that the representatives had acted properly for B and that B was well-represented throughout the hearing. B asked for transcripts of the Court hearing and CCTV footage.However. The Court claimed that despite being seen on CCTV waiting in a car and computers running throughout the hearing no recordings had been made and to date B has not seen copies of the papers put before the Commissioner either by his representatives or by the Benefits Agency.
It was reported that the DSS had hired the Court for the day.

In the meantime a new claim was submitted for the Industrial Injury. The DSS at first suggested that B could either claim for Industrial Accident dating from January 1992 or Industrial Disease from 1999.

B suggested that the disease was the direct result of the accident, which has been admitted.
The DSS confirmed that the incident is now officially regarded as an Industrial Accident and a medical will determine the degree of disability - but not a diagnosis. They say that he cannot receive benefit for both an accident and a disease contrary to their own rules.

57. July 2001 The chemical companies and the regulatory authorities all stated that the chemical mixture was illegal.
Scientists stated that such mixtures are extremely dangerous.
The Food Standards Agency stated that chemical would have been stable in the tank before release. All this proved that the defence scientific statements were inaccurate, if not entirely false and yet the barrister for B stated in court that his case was exceedingly weak.

58. August 2001 A new Judge, Moreland, declared that he was dismissing the case. B later learned that the judge admitted to holding shares in two unnamed chemical companies. Gabb & Co refused repeated requests for details of the facts put before the judge claiming that he saw 28 lever arch files and ring binders.

B informed the judge of the perjury and failures to present evidence before the court. The information is ignored.

59. January 2002 Gabb & Co reported that they had spoken to a scientist from the Environmental Law Foundation and claimed he had written a report suggesting that he would be able to safely drink the OPs to which B was exposed.
Eventually the contact details were given to B who wrote to the scientist explaining the true science of the chemicals.
Within days he wrote a new statement to the court suggesting that the science be checked before the case is dismissed. Gabb & Co however claimed that the scientist was unmoved and that they found another scientist who agrees with him.

B invited them both to drink his samples on camera.
The judge struck out every one of the OP cases. Written letters suggest that he changed his mind on 7 cases within one week with no further evidence.
He singled out B's case by stating that B had no right to appeal.
Gabb & Co promised to send papers but B received nothing.

60. February 2002 B wrote again to the judge. The court replied that the judge cannot correspond and that B should appeal to the Appeal Court.
Gabb & Co write to B stating that the Legal Services Commission were to blame for the failure to proceed, but sadly the case had ended, enclosing copies of court papers and a report from the scientist.

The Court papers show that the Appeal Judge Lady Hale had turned down the appeal on 1st February. Any appeal against that judgement should have been made within 7 days. i.e. 7th February.
The letter was received on the 13th February. No details of evidence presented were released.
The scientist's report, as submitted in haste to the court, was dated 18th January, just two days after B had faxed his letter warning that he had made a grave error of judgement.

That report actually supported B. It did not help the defence as claimed by Gabb & Co.
B asked Gabb & Co for an explanation but they claimed that the case was weak even in 1995.
The fact that ever increasing supporting evidence since that time had been found but not acted upon was raised by B but that too was ignored.
Further correspondence requesting details of evidence put before the Court and actions taken to maintain the Legal Aid Certificate remained unanswered

61. January 2002 The incident was at last officially confirmed by the Benefits Agency as an Industrial Accident. The Health and Safety Executive refuse to remove their false statements from the records, preferring instead to maintain what they refer to as a balance of opinion in the file. Facts are of no importance it seems.

The Benefits Agency made an appointment for a medical examination and it was reported that it was not for diagnostic purposes but to determine the extent of disability, the diagnosis having already been established.
However when B arrived for the examination it had been cancelled on the grounds that there was no doctor qualified to determine that decision. It was reported however that the file did show that Bs diagnosis of PD C3 was confirmed with all criteria fulfilled.

It was then suggested that Bs file had been lost and that the Benefits Agency was in the process of creating a new file. A small amount of compensation was paid for the delay caused.

62. August 2002 On advice from Operation Antler, the Wiltshire Police investigating the related incidents at Porton Down, B requested that Gabb & Co take steps to ensure that none of his medical records are destroyed.

63. September 2002 Gabb & Co claim that the hospitals have been notified not to destroy the records of the case after making a further application for Legal Aid to fund the writing of those vital letters if it was done.
There is no written confirmation of that action ever having been taken.

64. October 2002 Police list a dozen identified potential criminal offences but claim that the case has already been extensively Judicially Reviewed and refuse to even interview B or to investigate. They wrote

lt appears you are alleging:
1 An unlawful mix of chemicals in 1992 causing disability.
2 Fraudulent use of public money by officials.
3 Fraudulent use of public money paid to hospital doctors in order to obtain a diagnosis.
4 Fraudulent money paid to lawyers and barristers who failed to properly represent the case.
5 Health & Safety Executive, Basingstoke, placed false information on its files in order to avoid censure from the ombudsman for failing to discover the illegal mixture of chemicals.
6 The Health & Safety Executive put pressure on toxicologists to withdraw a diagnosis of poisons.
7 An unqualified solicitor put false evidence before the Legal Aid Board.
8 Lawyers who knew of the illegal mixture failed to notify you and, therefore, deprived you of the opportunity of treatment.
9 The lawyers introduced false evidence in court.
10 The lawyers failed to use the money paid to them to obtain supporting evidence.
11 Barristers made false statements to the court.
12 Scientists and medical experts mislead the courts.
These are a considerable number of general allegations of people belonging to professional bodies. It appears that your matter have been extensively judicially explored in the past ten years.

65. January 2003 A medical examination was arranged at Bs home on the insistence of Dr Berrange, a DSS examiner, who had seen the obviously unwell B at the earlier cancelled appointment.
The named doctor did not attend and in his place a Dr Ringer examined B.
Again the diagnosis was confirmed and it was stated that the evidence in the file fulfilled the criteria for the PD C3.
Dr Ringer confirmed that Bs case fitted the fragile egg scenario
whereby the earlier exposures to the chemicals had left B susceptible to the exposure to the illegal mixture.

The doctor also confirmed peripheral neuropathy and that the treatment offered by the GP and treating specialist was the only way to control the deterioration.
During the examination the doctor noted that B had suffered debilitating effects as the result of the effects of the doctors aftershave, despite use of a carbon air filter to provide clean air near Bs face.

Dr Ringer then contacted the Poisons Units Dr Volans for an explanation as to why the three letters had been written some 9 years earlier and suddenly both Dr Ringers report and his opinion changed.
Later the crossings out and insertions were plain to see in the provided copies.
He then ignored the proven cardio-respiratory, neurological and vision effects of the poison for which the GP had referred B urgently to the Poisons Unit all those years earlier.

His assessment of Bs disability was initially set at 55% without any mention of the above symptoms and this was reduced to 30% as having been caused by the accident by falsely stating that chemical sensitivity, joint, and vision effects were unrelated to the poisons. The assessment made no mention of the cardio- respiratory and neurological problems that caused the referral to Guys Poisons Unit.

The disability for life, was said to have been caused by the accident, but the report stated that B had not been poisoned but that he suffered from a mind set which believed in poisoning
Dr Ringers reference to pre-existing conditions that had not existed before the exposure was used to reduce the level of benefit paid.

Dr Volans, the dishonest doctor at the Poisons Unit had once again, undermined Bs case.
B requested full disclosure of documents under the Data Protection Act.
B made a complaint to the Benefits Agency and to the General Medical Council.
The GMC passed responsibility for the investigation to SchlumbergerSEMA, the company responsible for Medical Services and which benefited financially from appeals.

In the meantime it was promised that the decision would be reviewed and B sent further supporting evidence. Dr Murray, the toxicologist who initially made the diagnosis, also offered support and that letter was also forwarded to the Medical Services team. All was ignored.

66. June 2003 Court bills arrived from the lawyers and were challenged by B due to the misrepresentation and the use of so-called witnesses that were unknown.

67. October 2003 B wrote to Virginia Murray to update her on the situation for follow-up purposes.

68. November 2003 B wrote to Lord Justice Simon Brown, Appeal Judge, re perjury etc. He refused to get involved.

69. December 2003 Before Christmas 2003 the Benefits Agency reported that the decision was unchanged.
B suggested that this was quite wrong since the doctors involved were still under investigation and it was agreed that the review of the case would again be reviewed and that the investigation into the doctors would be examined again.
B supplied a supporting letter from the treating specialist, Dr Kenyon.

70. January 2004 Dr Virginia Murray telephoned B expressing her sympathy and stating that the Benefits Agency had not contacted her for advice on the case.
She claimed not to remember any pressure from the HSE and yet had been in tears at the time.

71. February 2004 The decision was again confirmed as unchanged, despite conversations with the Decision Maker on the telephone in which B challenged incorrect information.
The internal investigation into the doctors involved claimed to have found nothing wrong.

72. B was offered the chance to appeal but with a threat that if he did then his benefits would be reduced further by changing the assessment of the degree that his disability has been affected by the accident.

73. March 2004 The National Audit Office was notified of the fraudulent deception but took no action.

B requested that the decision on the diagnosis question be reviewed on the basis that the poisoning diagnosis was the only officially recognised explanation for the symptoms presented, that the treatment given was specifically to relieve the symptoms of the poison, that the DSS doctors had themselves admitted that the diagnosis was affirmed in the files, and that the very specialist on whose opinion their denial of the diagnosis was based had confirmed that medical science had failed completely to find an alternative diagnosis.

It was agreed that the case would be reviewed but there was no contact with the doctors involved directly in the case, or with Dr Virginia Murray, or the GPs practice.
B was offered a review of the case by the Independent Tier but given the history of this case it is unlikely that this body will be given the full and correct facts and it is therefore highly improbable that the truth will be admitted. A similar problem would be involved if the case was reported to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. All these actions have a cost.

A Member of the House of Lords suggested that Mark McGhee of Linder Myers would take on the case and B sent him the details of the case and reported the deception and perjury involved. No action followed.

74. April 2004 B wrote again to the General Medical Council requesting that they instigate the promised investigation into Drs Volans and Ringer because SchlumbergerSEMA had not properly investigated the case. They failed to respond. Ditto the Guys & St Thomas Trust
All avenues left open to B involve public funds and an adversarial processes which will only add to the stress and impose a further burden on the health and finances of the family.

Bs former employer again gives false information to the DSS re Bs exposure and illness.

75. May 2004 B wrote again to the Trust regarding the refusal to release medical records and the dishonesty. Dr Virginia Murray of the Health Protection Agency, the first doctor to diagnose poisoning, failed to act.
Dr Glyn Volans at the Medical Toxicology Unit failed to respond.
Dr Alison Jones of the Medical Toxicology Unit wrote for Dr Volans and had offered to help but when asked to provide the vital missing Medical Records, which would disprove the dishonest claims made by Dr Volans, she also refused to respond.
The Guys & St Thomas Trust Complaints Manager then gave more false information and stated that they would not correspond further except through Bs GP but when the GP wrote for copies of the records he received no reply
.
B reminded the Trust of the facts and suggested that the GP should not be drawn into their web of deception giving them 14 days to reply.,b> They failed to respond.
B wrote to the Chief Executive of the Trust explaining the situation and asking for the errors in the files to be corrected and for the supporting evidence to be released, sending a copy of the unanswered letter to the Complaints Manager.
They failed to respond.

76. June 2004 Court bills for the failures of the lawyers were again challenged due to the misrepresentation.
Again no action was taken.
B confirmed the appeal against the decision by Dr Ringer, in full knowledge of the risks, and supplied a mass of supporting information to the Tribunal, including a paper on poisoning by Dr Volans.
He also found a chemical analyst prepared to test samples of stored diluted chemical.
B knew that he needed legal assistance and approached the Citizens Advice Bureau who said that they did not represent claimants at Tribunals and suggested the local Law Centre. The Law Centre saw B, took his papers and said that they would try and obtain representation.
Weeks passed and B was told that he should collect his papers because the Law Centre could find no lawyer or barrister with sufficient skills to represent him.

77.July 2004 Chemical analysis showed that the chemicals did not break down as claimed. In fact their concentration in water increased after 5 years. B notified the Benefits Agency and regulatory authorities of these important findings but this made no difference to the position of any government agency involved. Virginia Murray was also notified but there was no response. (She worked for one of the manufacturers)
The Legal Services Commission were notified of this damning evidence against the defence expert witnesses but once again no action was taken and letters were ignored.

78. June 2004 B received Appeal papers, which were again incomplete, plus information that on 24th November 1994 there had been an hour long meeting where Bs case was discussed by a member of the House of Lords, Alan Care, a representative of a legal firm who was not a qualified solicitor, and the Benefits Agency. Despite various Data Protection and Freedom of Information requests no details of that meeting had been released to B. Requests for that information failed to obtain same but from information released it appeared that the decision to deny the poisoning diagnosis was taken in July 1994 without any medical examination and by ignoring all medical evidence and opinion.

79. By July 2004 B had obtained scientific proof that the chemicals to which he had been exposed could not have broken down to be harmless as suggested in statements made by HSE and experts for the court. The Benefits agency was informed by letter stating that
In the earliest days of this claim it was stated that "There is no evidence of direct contact with pirimiphos methyl, exposure identified only by smell"(Sheets A1& A7)
No one seems to have realised that the chemical identification was correct despite the refusal of the employer to provide the information as required by law.

Only years later was there an admission that another organophosphate had been added illegally to the pirimiphos methyl.
Furthermore evidence was presented to court claiming that the half-life of Actellic D, and indeed the illegal mixture, was that of almost pure pirimiphos methyl as reported in the literature.
None of those making such claims appear to have worked with or actually tested the data for any of the chemicals about which they made statements.

My knowledge is based on decades of daily exposure to, and recent study of these chemicals, and the questionable claims made by official bodies.

In reality, as I have reported to numerous official bodies, the pirimiphos methyl is protected from breakdown by other chemicals in the formulation known as Actellic D.
I understand that those involved at Guy's Hospital have direct links to the company responsible for manufacturing the product and they would therefore have known this was a fact but they chose to undermine the claim rather than admit to the truth

B wrote again.
If the appeal referred to in the unsigned letter from Julia Powell of 13th July 2004 proceeds with the paperwork in its current state it will be unlawful.
Again the evidence was ignored.

80. B wrote suggesting that the proposed medical expert for the tribunal had been involved in denying B the eligibility for the case at an earlier stage, since it was claimed that only one doctor by that name, Dr H Rees, was employed for that purpose.

81. November 2004 B reported the failure to obtain representation to the Citizens Advice Bureau and they suggested a local legal firm and the Legal Services Directory.
The local firm did not do the work and the Legal Services Directory suggested four other firms, none of which did the work.

One of those firms, Jerome & Co of Newport, offered to visit B and examine his case.
On seeing the file the solicitor took the papers and said that although she could not represent B she could act as a witness.
She suggested that B produced a file of papers giving evidence of the supporting and opposing diagnosis in the case and that B should record the Tribunal with a video camera.
She wrote and faxed to the Tribunal regarding the recording but there was no reply.

On the 19th November 2004 the solicitor arrived early at Bs home and B asked he if she can be trusted and if he should seek permission from the Tribunal to record and she tells him to start the recorder before they arrive.

The Tribunal did not appear to have brought the papers with them. There was no sign of the papers held by the solicitor. B suggested that if the Tribunal continued on the basis of the false Ringer report it will be illegal. They continued saying that they have not seen the papers supplied by B regarding the diagnosis. B suggested that this is because those hiding the truth did not want them to be seen.

B explained why he appealed and gave the required details but it was clear that the Tribunal were not interested in what they were being told and on more than one occasion B said that he would stop because they werent listening. The Tribunal even suggested that he stopped at one point because B was so ill but he was determined to put his case as forcefully as he could even though he was in pain, and in difficulty as the perfumes worn by the Tribunal were badly affecting his health.

B asked for the qualifications of Dr Huw Rees the Medical Examiner suspected as having been involved in denying his case before, but the Chairman stated that all B needed to know was that the Tribunal Service said that Dr Rees was sufficiently qualified. B tried to discover how much Dr Rees knew about OP poisoning and the Chairman stated that he would not allow that line of questioning.

An hour and a half into the proceedings the Chairman saw the camera and cried Contempt of Court.

B suggested that placing false evidence in the file was also contempt but the Chairman was only concerned about the recording and suggested that even the solicitors notes were in contempt.
From that moment the solicitor appears to have stopped taking notes but said she would hold the tape for safe keeping after the Tribunal had ended.

Dr Rees asked B if he could examine him. B asked if he had a choice and then said that he could examine him provided he confirmed or denied peripheral neuropathy.
Dr Rees asked B to lie on the settee where they had been sitting but the effects on his health from the perfumes was dramatic and his eyes and nose were streaming. B explained that he was not crying but it was just the effects of the toxins and that he knew these were known symptoms.

The nurse and Bs wife assisted B to undress and to get back to his chair and the carbon filtered air cleaner that he relies upon for fresh air.
Dr Rees continued his examination and B expressed his surprise at not being able to feel any vibrations in his wrists as he had been able to feel them during the Ringer examination. There was no vibration sense in the ankles either although he did feel a little under the bone on the outside of his right foot, reflexes in the arms and knees appeared poor and as far as he could tell the reflexes in his toes were not obviously there but he felt that his body was shutting down because of the state he was in.

Dr Rees poked Bs tongue and the back of his throat with a stick, stuck cotton wool spikes into his eyes, and used a propelling pencil to check for sharp and blunt sensation, which B found difficult to determine and times.
The Tribunal left with the nurse who had been present throughout in order to help and care for B.

B asked the solicitor to remove the tape from the camera and take it for safe keeping.
Within 10 minutes of the Tribunal leaving the Civil case the Defendant in Bs civil case, Bs landlord and former employer, entered the room with B still in a state of undress. He expressed his surprise at seeing B in such a state of ill-health but then spoke of his property development and farming work.
After drinking Bs coffee he gave the solicitor a lift back to her offices.

82. December 2004 The solicitors senior partner wrote to B stating that the Appeals Service had demanded the tape and threatened to take B to court for contempt. The solicitor had passed the tape to the Appeals Service giving permission for it to be destroyed.

B protested that it was destruction of evidence. If there was any recording on the tape then it could be evidence used against him in a contempt action and if the tape had not recorded, as suspected, then it would be evidence to support B. Simply because the Appeals Service had the tape they would think, wrongly, that they could falsify their report again and get away with it.

83. January 2005 The Appeals Service once again denied eligibility for the benefit. Somatisation Syndrome again stands.

The Appeals Service suggested that B had requested copies of the notes. He had not but those supplied were in any case incomplete and unreadable in parts.

B asks for full copies of all notes taken, with typed copies signed as authentic by those who made them, and for the unlawfully arrived at decision to be set aside.
A Member of the House of Lords was given permission to investigate the dishonesty in the case and suggested that Mark McGhee of Linder Myers would take the case to Judicial Review.

B was reluctant, believing that the entire system had proven to be corrupt.
The Appeals Service again raised the issue of contempt of court and the discourteous action of recording the proceedings and B once again complained about the false reports.

84. February 2005 B repeated his request and was sent typed versions of the same incomplete papers.
He asked again and pointed out errors in the report that has been signed only by the Chairman as authentic. The doctors report was also inaccurate and incomplete.
The Tribunal referred to a mysterious MED 3 certificate stating OP poisoning dating from 1987 - there was and could be no such thing. B was poisoned in 1992.
The Regional Chairman wrote to the Member of the House of Lords that B had made no complaint against the medical examiner but the full information was not available for an accurate criticism to be made. B suggested that the Regional Chairman investigated the actions of his staff.
B received notification that the Chairman refused leave to Appeal with the suggestion that if B disagrees he should request form OSSC1. B makes that request and suggests that there may be more effective ways to counter the gross dishonesty involved in his case.
B received evidence that Dr Ringer had also been involved in his case for many years.
B contacted the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence but they claimed to have no power of enforcement despite having handled 213 cases by March 2004 of which only 6 reached court despite a budget of 1.47 million for the year ending March 2004

85. March 2005 B submitted appeal papers to the Commissioner citing maladministration from the outset. McGhee failed to keep in contact with the solicitor who witnessed the Tribunal, despite promises, and disgracefully suggested that B accepted the CFS/Somatisation diagnosis as then B would win his case. B wondered why anyone would accept mental illness when they had been poisoned by illegal acts.

B discovered that his DSS case file claim files supposedly went "missing" when in the possession of Dr Ringer, which added another sinister dimension to the story.
Lost files are soon found when needed. B had a letter published in the national Press and received a phone call warning him to be careful.

86. May 2005 With GP assistance blood serum samples sent to the internationally renowned expert in organophosphorus poisoning in the USA. Professor Abou-Donia again confirmed chronic poisoning.
The Information was sent to the Commissioners, HSE and to the Benefits Agency but again it was ignored. It was clear that officials were giving even the Commissioners false information.

87. 13th June 2005 Commissioners wrote to B to say that Judicial Review was the only path open to him and closed all correspondence.

88. 5th July 2005 McGhee claimed he wanted to help B but B would have to send the court everything and prepare all the papers for Judicial Review and serve them himself, with no legal training at all.
When the required forms reached B he was unable to read them without suffering the effects of the perfumes on the paper. After photocopies were obtained he required help but the court was unhelpful. McGhee suggested that B should request yet another Tribunal which would not have helped much and after photocopying thousands of papers twice McGhee then told B that he would need three copies.
B had no choice but to restrict the numbers and when finished sent them to McGhee for checking. McGhee claimed to have checked the papers and told B they were OK to send to the Court but B noticed that the rules stated that Indexing and page numbering was required so had to start again.
B sent the papers to the Court by recorded delivery on 18th July 2005.
The courts received the papers for Judicial Review at 9.05. am on the 19th July.

89. 13th August 2005 The court returned the papers to B with the suggestion that one letter was not present in the files. B

had not realised that he needed to include the Commissioner's refusal and thought that simply enclosing the letter from the Legal Officer for the Commissioner refusing to alter their view was enough. McGhee had seemed to imply that also at the time.

Part of the papers held together by a clip added by the court were the Tribunal reports but the rest remained untouched. B was now out of time but he contacted the court and was given permission to re-submit the papers along with a request for an extension of time.
The application was sealed by the Court on 16th August 2005 "to reflect the date of receipt"

90. 31st August 2005 Papers were served on Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Posted first class special delivery to Treasury Solicitor and SOL Litigation for DWP.

91. September 2005 DWP acknowledged service but said that they are to counter the claim for Judicial Review because B has no supporting evidence, was too late in the application, and has the wrong defendant. This was astounding as the Treasury Solicitor's office - which had not acknowledged service had telephoned B reporting that the DWP had asked the Treasury Solicitors to send the DWP their copy of his application papers. The reason for this, they said, was that the DWP were responsible for the action and not the Treasury Solicitors. When B pointed out to the Treasury Solicitors that the Claim forms specifically state that they should be involved when Commissioner's decisions are involved and that it was a Department of Constitutional Affairs lawyer's refusal to accept evidence proving that the Commissioners had misinterpreted the evidence B was told that he was correct and that their department called "D4" would be informed.

91. November 2005 B is told that he is on the point of being arrested. Nothing happened but it was interesting given that the court had reported that the perversion of justice was a matter for the Police.

So did Trading Standards, the Law Society and the Bar Council, among others but apparently the Police will not even investigate perjury unless a judge tells them to.

92. Saturday 12th November 2005 B was examined by a DSS doctor for his Disability Allowance but the after-shave worn by the Doctor made B very ill indeed. He made a complaint to Medical Services as they were aware of the potential reactions in letters by doctors in the past. B received an apology and was granted Middle Rate Care Allowance in addition to his High Rate Mobility allowance.

93. December 2005 B discovered that the failed legal firms were paid 73,856.43 in June in B's case alone for lies.

94. 19th January 2006 B received the refusal decision notice for Judicial Review dated 18th October 2005 with just 7 days from the date of posting, 16th January 2006 to complete appeal forms.
The GMC also again refused to investigate the dishonest doctors.

95. B dispatched Judicial Review renewal forms by fax and post to both parties on 23rd January 2006 and received a response the following day.

96. Meanwhile McGhee failed even to send off the legal aid application forms that he had demanded.

97. March 2006 Legal Aid was then refused on the grounds that B had not shown that the decision involved is illegal, irrational or procedurally improper.
Evidence provided to B demonstrated that the DWP had the poisoning diagnosis on their records for at least ten years.

98. April 2006 B discovered from an expert that the preparation for Judicial Review is the hardest part of the process but also that the long promised support from McGhee was not to be forthcoming.
B realised that he had been set up for a fall once again and that McGhee had used the services of a newly qualified barrister, the Matrix Chamber's Tessa Hetherington, to repeat the false information used by lawyers before so as to ensure denial of legal aid.
As B reported the diagnosis did not have to be scientifically proven - although it had been. The Presumption Rule forces the Tribunal to provide evidence and to scientifically prove their alternative view - and they cannot.
What B reported could be supported beyond any doubt - but still McGhee insisted in claiming that Bs case was weak. His reasons were unfathomable as there was ample evidence to show that the Tribunal not only erred in law but also had actually acted illegally by falsifying statements and deliberately misleading the court.
All challenges and corrections to the information submitted were ignored. B was on his own - again.

It was reported that Dr Rees had been promoted as the new clinical medical toxicologist of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides a dubious appointment given his dishonesty and that he had already written a paper suggesting that Welsh shepherds suffered the effects of stress and not the poisons in the sheep dip that they had been exposed to.

99. May 2006 The court pressed for a hearing date but B suggested that he could not withdraw his request for Judicial Review without committing the offence of condoning a criminal act but was too ill to represent himself and was unable to obtain legal assistance.
The Court was being misled by the DWP.
In an angry telephone exchange McGhee told B that that even recorded and written evidence is no good and Bs complaints about contempt of court would get nowhere. B wondered if he had been briefed.

100. B searched for representation but the Public Law Project refused to work unless referred to by solicitors, the CAB or Law Centres, all refused to assist, as did Office for Judicial Complaints. No-Win-No-Fee firms were not interested.

101. McGhee visited B who gave him proof of what the DWP were denying. McGhee suggested that recording the tribunal was definitely not contempt of court but that Judicial Review was a waste of time although B had no other path to go down.
McGhee promised to try and obtain the medical records but never did.
As a lawyer wrote 'ubi jus, ubi remedium' should now be our motto. 'Where there is law, there must be a remedy'.
B says laws and regulations that are not enforced are no laws at all....

102. November 2006 It was reported that a recent court decision declared that the DSS insistence on no notes or recordings of medicals was unlawful. Apparently it is OK to take notes and/or record either openly or covertly. That means that yet another action by the Tribunal Service in Bs case was unlawful, including the demanding of the tape, threatening the solicitor who was taking the notes, and the destruction of evidence.

103. December 2006 The Court wrote that B should apply to have the false evidence removed from the court files using the PF244 form with a fee of 100 Bs point was that whenever there is a new hearing all the old false evidence gets re-introduced to his detriment and that he had already requested a full investigation into the perjury as the court staff suggested. B could find no lawyer or court official to advise him as to how to complete that form.

104. January 2007 In desperation B wrote to the Treasury Solicitors for advice on how to complete the form, asked for the contact details for their expert in Industrial Injury and suggested that from the publication "The Judge over your Shoulder" there is a duty on the part of the defendants to assist those acting in person so B asked for advice on the best path to take to have the deliberately inserted false statements removed from court papers so as to avoid unnecessary costs. There was no reply.

105. B discovered that the PF244 form was for asylum seekers and that it would actually be dangerous for his case if he completed it as required by the court. The Court had referred B to the Personal Support Unit but they had no idea how to assist and referred B to the Inns of Court Law School which declared that of course B could have legal representation and they would assist. However, they fell silent and refused further contact and failed even to explain about the form.
Below are a few quotes and comments from those B approached for "urgent legal assistance" are given below.

Local Law Centre

Claimed not to be able to find any solicitor of barrister with sufficient qualifications to take the case.

Local Solicitors

Stated that they were not permitted by the Law Society to assist in such cases.

Justice Direct 31 August 2006

Dear B,we have considered your claim but unfortunately we are not in a position to help...

Inns of Court Law School 11 January 2007

We are unfortunately not in a position to offer legal representation and so the assistance we can offer will be limited to a one off letter of advice as appropriate.
They offered Pro Bono advice but because of my disability B was unable to travel to their offices and they were therefore not able to help and refused even to advise on how to complete a PF244 form, suggested by the High Court as a means to trigger an investigation into the deception and perjury reported to the Court.
They were to contact the Bar Pro Bono Unit but B heard no more.

Public Law Project 14 March 2007

Implied that they might be able to assist but only if I found a solicitor who would put the case forward to them. They told B that they work with Liberty and that organisation reports that it acts for free in public interest cases but they failed to respond to B's phone messages or to emails

Clifford Chance 10 June 2007
Failed to respond

Treasury Solicitors

Asked to assist under their duty (Judge over your Shoulders quote) to those who could not obtain legal representation they failed to respond.

So much for the claim that we are all equal under the law. Criminals have been protected from the outset by use of perjury, perversion of justice, deception and fraud.

106. Jobcentre Plus suggested that B contacted the Department for Constitutional Affairs as that is the department that controls Tribunals. B wrote to John Lyons CBE regarding the impossible task in obtaining legal representation and stating that hiding the truth, fraudulent concealment of evidence, is a feature of this case and it is long past the time when the truth should be recognised and action taken against those who have perverted justice with their deliberate deception, ignoring the basic rules for evidence intended for the courts. It was then that B realised that that department also controls the Legal Services Commission. Mr Lyon passed the correspondence to the Tribunal Service for reply...

107. Gorrod for the DWP wrote to B admitting - that Bs symptoms are of OP poisoning but say B has not been poisoned. The opinion based on the advice of the "undoubted expert at the toxicology unit at Guy's Hospital" who has both confirmed and denied that Bs symptoms are consistent with poisoning despite his own papers listing those symptoms, and his assertion that pesticides are more dangerous than nerve gas.

108. B discovered that a Notice of Motions dated 7th December had the comment that the NHS hold "Medical Special Case Files" which are not released even to lawyers when medical records are requested. The judge in the Hill v Tomkins case stated categorically that there can be no excuse for the non- production of medical records but this revelation appears to provide just that excuse.
Effectively this ensures that no person can win a civil case if the Government decrees that it must fail.

109. February 2007 B obtains his case files from lawyers at further expense and discovers
the false Humber statement;
that lawyers wrote that B had been injured as the result of his service in the Gulf War, which is impossible;
that people were fearful of the power of Bs employer;
that the Official Solicitor's brother, Howe, had also been poisoned by the chemical involved in the Hill case and in Bs mix;
and that HJ&A had suggested that no chemists report was required for the case.

B twice wrote to the defendants lawyers seeking an explanation for the false statement. There was no reply.
From case beginning to end no mention was made about the nature of the illegal mix of chemicals.

110. B found the missing cholinesterase reports in the case files and as suspected they proved both exposure and poisoning but were hidden from B in order to pervert the course of justice and to defraud both B and his family, in addition to extracting money unlawfully from the state. Interesting too was the fact that expert chemists had offered to help Bs case even though lawyers stated that they could find none who would assist.

120. May 2007 B discovered that ICI, the makers of one of the chemicals is a customer of Atos Origin, the company that determines eligibility for benefits due to illness caused by those chemicals.

121. June 2007 The Court decided that B has to attend Court in London. B reminded them that he was too ill and had no legal representation. The hearing set for 4th September was adjourned to 14th September 2007 with a video link to be set up from the local Magistrates Court.

122. B spoke to a solicitor of long standing who had met Bs son and he told B that even he could probably not do a Judicial Review case himself and had never been involved in anything at that level.

123. In case the video link went down or B was unable to speak because of his condition B sent the judge a statement together with arguments countering those of the Secretary of State plus supporting evidence to show that the Tribunal knew that it had acted unlawfully.
The High Sheriff of the Isle of Wight witnessed Bs statement and all the papers were posted on the 5th September, confirmed on 6th by the GPO as delivered to the Court.

There was a specific request that the judge should be in possession of the evidence.

124. Advice received was that if B became too ill to proceed the judge would not believe him unless he had a letter from his GP who duly produced a letter once again confirming chronic OP poisoning and stating that if the court needed any more information he was available to assist.

125. 14th September 2007 Friday morning and B supported by his family arrived at the court at 9.40am for 10.15 am but the court officials appeared to know nothing and asked if B was in custody.
Then they found the diary but the woman who arranged the video link had a day off.
They faxed the GP's letter to the High Court in London.

About 10.40 after much confusion the link was up and the judge appeared on the screen. The local court was empty but for B, his family and the court official controlling the computer.
McGhee had promised to attend but failed to arrive.
Presumably his job was done.

The judge said that as far as he could tell from the evidence there was no case to answer and the refusal to grant Judicial Review was correct.
B asked how that was possible when the Tribunal had claimed somatisation yet the GP's letter faxed to him that morning by the court clearly gave the diagnosis as poisoning. The Judge had no letter and yet it had been faxed to him 3 times. The Judge declared that he had nothing from B since January 2006.

Not even the statement dated 5th September 2007 or the 40-odd pages of supporting evidence.
The Statement read

Statement by ************in the matter of a Judicial Review Appeal Case CO/6520/2005

Re The Queen on the application of *********** versus SS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

I make this written statement as a precaution should my unpredictable condition cause me to be unable to give a comprehensive verbal statement during the video-linked hearing set for the 14th September 2007.

The request for Judicial Review was made at the insistence of those who are aware of the true nature of this case and of the actions of those who have brought us to this point. The very fact that those who have seen the evidence requested that I refer the case to Judicial Review indicates that the decisions made do not comply with the expectations for fair and unbiased hearings.
For my part I would rather not risk my health further by this action but I understand that although many have been treated similarly my case is one of the few in which there is sufficient evidence.

I have not brought this case lightly and it is not simply about a dispute over diagnosis.
I am satisfied that my GPs and specialists have arrived at the correct diagnosis and although the refusal by the Tribunal Service to recognise that diagnosis is bewildering it does not endanger my life or those of others, unlike the false information held by other parts of the DWP, such as the Health and Safety Executive, or by the Department of Health. Action is required to prevent similar duplicity in other cases.

The request for Judicial Review is to raise the issue that officials and medical examiners have deliberately fabricated evidence and hidden supporting evidence in order to achieve their chosen outcome to the disadvantage of claimants, as reported to the National Audit Office.
It is clear that the medical examiners were in breach of PROTOCOL No. 4 (18.02.2000) Hearings where a physical examination may be carried out under Regulation 52 of the Decision Making and Appeal Regulations 1999, and PROTOCOL No 10 (02.08.2001, revised 13.05.2003) medical reports which give cause for serious concern.

My first duty is to protect my family, to ensure that no harm is done to them, and to protect my sanity in the face of so many lies. I took steps to ensure that at every stage I would be able to support everything I reported. That is why so much is in writing to ensure that at every stage the facts were on record.

Diagnosis of chronic organophosphorus poisoning is not easy and it requires skill and specialist tests and equipment not available to medical examiners employed by the Department at tribunals

Occupational poisoning is admitted to be easier to diagnose than other cases and there is said to be a priority in dealing with cases involving the illegal use of pesticides. It is surprising therefore that I have encountered such difficulty with what is, or should have been, a very simple and straightforward case.
It is also surprising that the Department has confirmed other cases with far less evidence.

I became aware that efforts were being made to ensure that poisoning was not recognised in my case at an early stage. What I did not know at the time was that deliberately false statements prepared by my employer, his insurers, and staff, had triggered those efforts. The supporting evidence is available.

Even the Police have identified a dozen potential criminal offences in this case but they, like the Court Service, suggest that they do not have the power to act unless instructed to do so by a Judge.

My doctor and his chosen specialists established the poisoning diagnosis only after extensive and very expensive tests by numerous hospitals had exhausted all other causes and confirmed the diagnosis.

There have been numerous reasons given by the medical examiners and tribunals for denying the diagnosis and all of them have proved to be unsubstantiated.
The accident has been confirmed as having caused the disability for life and was exposure to an illegal chemical mixture of unknown toxicity. Scientific analysis confirms the chemicals involved remain active and toxic for years in dilution. Chronic fatigue syndrome cannot be diagnosed if poisoning is a feature and the "alternative" suggestion of Coxsackie B viral cause was unfounded, as admitted by Dr Ringer.
Claims that there was no evidence of exposure are disproved by the serial cholinesterase test results which showed 35% depression even 6 months after the incident. This forms part of the medical evidence that was withheld from me but which was available to Dr Volans and the Department.
Exposure and the damage caused are also confirmed by the tests performed under the control of my GP and the NHS by Professor Abou-Donia, and others, therefore the accusations regarding a "mind-set" and"somatisation" are disproved by both the above and by the medical evidence provided to the tribunal.
In addition the Medical examiners and the Tribunals cannot claim that they did not have the necessary information as from the outset I have provided "warts and all" written statements which have reported all events in great detail. When false information has been inserted I have detailed why the information is false, what the truth was, and when and why suggested alternative illnesses were officially discounted.

In 1996 senior hospital officials informed my GP of the political reasons for withdrawing the diagnosis.
Political pressure and the close relationship between influential officials have corrupted the process.
As also requested from the tribunal I ask the court why it is that officials can insert false information without the need to justify their comments with evidence and yet the claimant has to prove every single point to a scientific standard of proof, even though that standard is not legally required.
Both parties should in theory be working to establish the facts and come to a just and fair decision.

In reality the Department has an interest in denying the diagnosis and it is interesting that the Health and Safety Executive, which influenced the withdrawal by Dr Volans on the basis of the false employer statements, has refused to remove the false information on its files unless ordered to do so by a Judge.

The Department's own examiners have found symptoms and signs, which they then either ignore or fail to properly account for in their deliberations. Opposing opinions in reports deny those given verbally.

From 1995 when I was first examined for the PD C3 claim medical examiners have reported sensory loss, neurological problems, varying degrees of peripheral neuropathy etc. They have seen medical records and medico-legal reports referring to those medical records that demonstrate clearly that the known and recognised symptoms of organophosphorus poisoning are present and officially recorded.

My own "History of Illness" booklet lists all the symptoms as reported by doctors, including the "pins and needles" sensations that indicate peripheral neuropathy. Even the National Poisons Unit tests showed "delays" in the heart, heart rate abnormalities and reduced respiratory function, even though the neurological abnormalities "in the return signals" found were reported verbally but not in writing. The tribunals cannot possibly support their contention that these signs were the result of "somatisation" or "mind-set" unless they ignore the evidence before them - and that is exactly what they have done.

Dr Ringer and Dr Rees for the tribunal both found sensory abnormalities and peripheral neuropathy on examination. They were aware of the cardio-respiratory problems and viewed them first-hand and yet they did not feature as supporting evidence though they are internationally recognised signs of poisoning.
It was only after the examination by Dr Rees that I realised that he had negative response for gagging reflex etc but I was surprised that the lack of vibration sense had spread to my wrists on examination. Dr Rees made no comment at all, despite being given permission to perform his examination only if he would confirm or deny the presence of peripheral neuropathy. I was too ill to press the point at the time.

The chairman, on leaving, actually told the solicitor that they would probably confirm the PD C3.

I must report to the court that the solicitor who witnessed the tribunal of 2004 advised me to record the proceedings because she had realised that deception had taken place previously. As is on record the tribunal threatened me with Contempt of Court charges but it is also in record that the tribunal was informed it would be unlawful if it went ahead with its reliance on statements that it knew to be false.

I realise that two wrongs do not make a right but I would ask the court; which is the greater crime?
Is it that of the professionals whose task it is to ensure the legality of vital judicial processes but deliberately introduced false information to ensure the failure of a perfectly legitimate claim? Or is it the action of the innocent victim of that deception who is forced to obtain the evidence needed to protect himself, his family and the integrity of the legal process?

In the hope that justice and truth will prevail I requested Judicial Review of the decision to refuse a re-examination of the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that false evidence was placed in the file. This was refused on the basis of the Department's claim that there is no evidence, but there is ample evidence. The officials involved have abused the system and that fact should not allow them to succeed with the deception that endangers the health of our population, and the accuracy of data held on us all.

I respectfully request that my request for Judicial Review is granted and that the actions of the individuals who caused this disgraceful situation to arise will be properly investigated at no further cost to myself.

[ Witnessed by the High Sheriff of the Isle of Wight 5/9/07 ]

Judicial Review Appeal hearing 14th September 2007

I hope that the Court has had sight of my statement of 5th September and the supporting evidence. This case exemplifies how abuse of position and of power can lead to complete corruption of the facts and lead to decisions that are unsupportable.
I believe that this problem would never have arisen if there had been independent record of events and proceedings. It amazes me that the officials involved have chosen to go to these lengths in order to suppress the true facts simply to overpower a sick ex-farm worker. Admissions made before witnesses are denied in written reports and those who seek to deceive us are always at an advantage. We first have to discover the deception and are then forced to find the evidence to both prove it, and to support the true facts, by which time there is more deception to overcome and the process begins again. Those involved know only too well what they have done.

The victims are always at a disadvantage and are made to appear in the wrong but in this case the greatest ally I have is the truth and it cannot be suppressed forever.
These individuals have no respect for their own rules and regulations so what they have to hide must be extremely important for us all.

I understand that the Aarhus Convention to which Britain was an early signatory establishes rights in cases with important environmental features. (see section 9.3)
This is such a case as it involves chemicals that were, in this incident and are still, released into our environment and added to our food.

There is evidence to support my understanding of the methods used to bring us to this difficult situation and I have unsuccessfully requested explanations from all those involved in the deceptions that are at the heart of the problem.
Even before I was advised to make any claim the employer, his staff and insurers, created false statements with a view to divert any investigation or prosecution.
Sadly those inventions were accepted as facts when the opposite was true. Members of the Health and Safety Executive, an agency of the Department for Work and Pensions, then used that information to influence doctors to withdraw their diagnosis and that in turn resulted in the withholding of vital medical records from me, my GPs and from my then legal teams, despite the regulations, repeated requests, and instructions to obtain them given to solicitors by a High Court Judge.
In fact the reporting of the serving of the writ for negligence against my employer saw the written encouragement to HSE staff to "Spike his guns" with direct reference to my civil action. Although explained as a "joke" subsequent actions deliberately undermined the case. The resulting false information corrupted the decision-making processes now referred for Judicial Review and was used as support by others who acted similarly not only in this case but also in other chemical poisoning cases.

Misfeasance and malfeasance are features of this case and the evidence is irrefutable but it is also clear that there has been a deliberate central plan to pervert justice.
As the late Lord Denning stated "Be you never so high, the law is above you" and "We have but one prejudice. That is to uphold the law"

I can only hope that this high ideal still holds firm today and I simply ask the court to examine the evidence with care and diligence and to come to a fair decision.

**************

There was a scurrying of court officials, papers flying everywhere as the Judge asked where the papers were. B said that the statement says how officials have provided false statements to hide the poisoning diagnosis.
The Aarhus Convention may also apply (article 9.3). There have also been breaches in the protocols for medical examinations etc.
But the judge didn't have the papers. He gave B a fax number and said he could fax him copies of all the papers that B would like him to see.
He then said they would probably have to adjourn the case and would have to close the video link.

During the next hour, with the Court empty, the Court staff faxed the Judge about 80 pages including
evidence of false statements,
the official refusal to remove false statements from the records, threats of prosecution for telling the truth,
evidence that doctors admitted they were on the losing side before they lied again,
and a whole host of other damning evidence.
It was also stated that there was more evidence available if the court offered protection to witnesses.

When B arrived home he was shattered with the usual tremors etc., but could not settle and sent the Judge another fax saying that at least now a High Court judge was in possession of the evidence of contempt of court. Also sent was the copy of the postal receipt and Royal Mail confirmation of delivery to the court. That was sent at 14.10 in the afternoon of the 14th September, the day of the video link.

B heard no more but was expecting to be recalled to the court or to receive notification that an investigation into the criminal actions of the officials would begin.

126. On the 19th September the decision was received and it is clear that the judge cannot have properly considered to evidence before him. It took over an hour to fax the information. He had three cases after Bs and the faxing did not end until after midday. He studied another case during his break.
Despite the suggestion of adjournment the judge had re-opened the hearing on the afternoon of the 14th and read what later appeared to be a prepared statement denying Judicial Review but he gave no reasons for his decision in his notification of the decision.

B had looked at the web site with the court listings and recognised a name in a case following his.
B contacted the individual who had heard what had been said in court and suggested that B was "very brave" - from that source B discovered that Nicholas Blake was a stand-in as the presiding Judge.
The original Judge due to hear the case was to have been none other than Henry Hodge of HJ&A who was ill on the day and so one linked to him was chosen.

127. B asked the court for the reasons for the decision and was told that they would be found in the Transcripts. B requested the transcripts, reasons, and clarification regarding the judges from the court. B also asked for clarification regarding the criminal offence of concealment of criminal offences - something pointed out to the judge in the pages of additional evidence sent to him by the court.
B had to write to the Judge to obtain his permission to have copies of the recordings and transcripts. Permission was granted on 4th October 2007.

128. B reported his concerns to the Office for Judicial Complaints but was told that perversion of Justice was a matter for the Police and that he should contact the Legal Services Ombudsman. The Judge had been given a copy of the Police letter listing a dozen potential offences and a letter from the Court Service stating that the Police would get involved if ordered to do so by a judge - but the evidence was ignored. The Office for Judicial Complaints refused to clarify the legal position regarding the criminal offence of concealing an offence. Strangely a response supposedly from the Office for Judicial Complaints was sent from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which probably explains why the advice given was fro B to contact the Law Society, Bar Council or the Office for Judicial Complaints.
Such nonsense must be simply to confuse any complainant and send them around in circles.
All had already been contacted but refused to act.

129. November 2007. On the 13th B faxed those who provide the transcripts and was informed that the Court had made no requests for the Transcripts to be made available.
It was reported that Patrick Allen of HJ&A had also been made a judge, as was Stuart-Smith who had put false information before the courts when acting for the defence.
A solicitor who had assisted in destroying the cases was reported as promoted to Treasury Solicitor.
B wrote to the Judicial Ombudsman regarding the criminal acts that were condoned at the highest level.
The Office for Judicial Complaints wrote If, subsequently, as a result of your information to the police, a criminal investigation is conducted, then the matter will be referred to the Office for Judicial Complaints

130. Notification that the processing of the Transcripts had begun.

131. December 2007 The Judicial Ombudsman stated that it was up to B and not the authorities to report to the Police.

132. January 2008. Police confirm that "Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, as amended by Schedule 7 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police act 2005, creates the offence of persons concealing the fact that relevant offences have been committed and not revealing the fact because they have been offered money or some other consideration for not doing so. It states:
5(1) Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other relevant offence has been committed, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration other than the making good of loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury, commits an offence.

A 'relevant offence' is defined as either an offence for which the sentenced is fixed by law, ot [sic] an offence for which a person of 18 years or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or might be sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by sentenced 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

There are various offences which may cover concealment of other specific criminal offences, notably in relation to money laundering. However without knowing the detail of your situation it is difficult to give definitive advice."

133. February and B received partial transcripts and a CD of the recording, which he did not realise was of the entire days proceedings. The first hour or so was when the court was empty and being prepared and so it seem at first to B that the recording was poor. B asked again for the full transcripts.
When they arrived unusually they began with the comment that they would be inaccurate due to poor sound quality but because B had the recordings he could see that only controversial information could not be heard or recorded accurately and so was removed from the transcripts.
One paragraph read 10. In my judgement there is no supporting evidence but merely extravagant propositions relied upon by the claimant.......[the Tribunal and Commissioner] were bound to refuse the application for permission to appeal......."

In other words these people are permitted to ignore whatever evidence they prefer to ignore, investigate themselves, and then decide that there is no evidence.
But there is ample evidence - and all involved know very well that there is.
The Judge even had the nerve to say that despite Bs GP's confirmation of the diagnosis the Tribunal were not privy to that information but he has been giving it to them in writing on Sick Notes, Med 4 forms and letters for 16 years with all of that information in the papers presented for Judicial Review and to the various Tribunals and Commissioner Hearings.

In reality B obtained the transcripts too late as the time limits for appeal had passed.

The government, having used deception to deny B and many others rightful compensation and recognition of the damage done by their approved chemicals, is now using similar deception to take away the financial support for their victims provided by the Benefit System the victims had helped fund via their and their employers National Insurance Contributions.

In addition the false information they have generated is still, 20 years later, being used by officials of government to undermine Bs credibility as he seeks to prevent others suffering in a similar way.

134. Comment.

Misfeasance and malfeasance are features of this case and all those linked to it and the evidence is irrefutable - but it is also clear that there has been a deliberate central plan to pervert justice.
As the late Lord Denning stated "Be you never so high, the law is above you" and
"We have but one prejudice. That is to uphold the law"

According to the guidance given to Decision Makers

1. There is a presumption that the Prescribed Disease is the result of the work in PD C3.

2. The Decision Maker must confirm the diagnosis of PD C3 unless there is certain unarguable evidence against the diagnosis.

3. The decision should not be made on the basis of scientific certainty but it should be based only on the Balance of Probabilities. In other words, it is more likely than not.

4. The disease question should take precedence over the accident if it is possible that the disease was the result of the accident, even when the Claimant does not suspect the possibility of disease.

5. If there is a sequela of the disease present, and peripheral neuropathy is just such a symptom, then the disease must be confirmed. Medical Services have confirmed that the accident caused the disability.
Had the tank contained water and not the illegal toxic mix then there would have been no accident.
It is therefore illogical that Medical Services deny poisoning, especially given the fact that they have evidence to the effect that the National Health Service has funded treatment, through Bs GP, only for the symptoms of Chronic Organophosphorus Poisoning and continues to do so to this day in 2012.
The employers staff lied to the employer and the employer lied to the HSE and to the DSS , probably on the advice of his insurers who told him not to report the incident to the HSE.
The defendant has used his own false information, re-introduced by HSE, to strike out the claim.

There is obvious maladministration on the part of HSE but the Parliamentary Ombudsman refused to act. The Guy's & St Thomas Trust refuse to release the full medical records and this has also harmed B's rightful claim for benefits and his civil case. They fail to acknowledge recorded delivery letters.
The DSS have broken their own regulations and ignored specialist medical opinion.

The Legal Services Commission has allowed lawyers to breach their own rules of conduct and have themselves given false calculations in order to take money from B for contributions.
The Law Society, Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, Bar Council and Legal Services Ombudsman have all turned blind eyes to dishonest acts and perversion of Justice with many players actually promoted to high positions after complaints had been dismissed without proper investigation.
The Courts have permitted perjury and perversion of justice to succeed.
The GMC and the NHS Executive refuse to take action against the Guy's & St Thomas' Trust or the Benefits Agency doctors.
The Information Commissioner also refuses to get involved and refuses to offer assistance in obtaining the missing records - even when the known missing papers are itemised. The Neill Committee had links to the Legal Aid Board and to the DSS and the food industry.
They refuse to act on the false information given by ministers to both Houses of Parliament.
Unable to obtain the full medical records the medical experts used by the defence are permitted to get away with false statements and the patient is repeatedly refused his rightful benefits, his right to independent, informed expert opinion, and to justice.
Despite hard evidence that
the incident happened,
that all regulations were broken,
that chemical safety data are grossly flawed,
that serious adverse effects on health are ongoing,
and that lies have been told at every level of Government in order to protect those who are trying to hide the truth,
it seems that there is no avenue open to expose the truth about these chemicals and their effects of human health.

The Legal Services Commission (2002); Office of Fair Trading (2002); Ombudsman (2002); Court Service (2003); Crown Prosecution Service (2006); Solicitors Regulation Authority (2007); and the Legal Services Ombudsman (2008) all say the Police should investigate without ordering the investigation themselves which allows the Police to avoid action.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission refuse to get involved.
MPs have failed to properly represent the case and simply believe whatever officials tell them.

The law is now controlled by vested interests and the most serious crimes of perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice are ignored.
If these actions can be taken against a person who is the victim of criminal actions then what hope is there for others with lesser evidence?
However. The truth has ways of knowing its enemies and of finding them out and it is sincerely hoped that at some stage a way will be found to bring a speedy halt to this corrupt madness.

For the surprising responses from the various organisations supposedly employed to counter Serious Fraud see the many emails here.

Dated 29/02/2012    Updated 22/02/2016

Go to top

  Return to latest updates   Return to Front Page;   Return to OP file;