I have posted a file to the High Court now and I think it was the right thing for me to do. Ian Taylor MBE MP replied to Roger Evans MP on 29th March 1995. (Under Sec of State Trade and Industry) I had drawn to my MPs attention a Times report on a massive compensation case in the US courts. This was against UK companies who had supplied sub standard equipment to US Forces and the companies were ordered to pay damages. Former test techs from the companies appear to have been given immunity in USA to give evidence of falsification of factory test records. Roger Evans MP (a tory barrister) reported this for the minister's attention in conjunction with concerns about Plessey Torpedo and Sonar and about Petbow backup Generators (both manufacturers of equipment vital to the Defence of the Realm) The final two paragraphs of Ian Taylor's reply set out, in my view which is why I put copies in the High Court file, the reliance the country places upon Chief constables: "I can appreciate why Mr Knockknee might believe that a mandatory system of quality control should be established by legislation. ......... I cannot comment on the particular legal case as this is a matter for the US authorities ........ There are already a variety of offences in UK law designed for different purposes; and any person who becomes aware of a criminal offence is already obliged to inform the police. I have no reason to believe that the law is inadequate" So there he is the Chief constable whose operational independence is, I agree, essential for the preservation of our constitution. So who second guesses the Chief when he does not want to upset the backup genny manufacturer or torpedo manufacturer in his locale ? And decides on nil action. The lads can get by by firing torps designed in 1933 at the Belgrano (with success) because the modern system too unreliable. Backup gennies can fail and cause closure of Dounreay/HMS Vulcan. Backup gennies can fail and bring Hunterston B close to criticality (Jock Chernobyl) The Chief constable says "Well isn't it a matter for Trading Standards" Included in my file to the High Court is a copy of an email from a senior engineer involved in defence procurement. Naming names. I describe a long history of Kent Police operational independence extending immunity from investigation. To a number of men I can now show were associates. A Reliance Security Guard at Deal Barracks 1989, an arrested paramilitary and an allaged saboteur. Recently Arsse has done impressive work re one James Shortt, apparent Walt of the parish of guess where. So I wrote drawing Kent Chief constable attention to this. I asked did the Army Physical Training Corps raise MI5 inquiry to allay their concerns about CQB courses run at Deal Barracks in 1982 (before we deployed to Falklands). And why such a security inquiry, which would have liaised with Kent Special Branch, did not appear to inform their own breach of security inquiry before the 1989 bombing which in turn has no mench in the Admiralty Board of Inquiry report to HMG. Would he reply and allay my concerns by, for example, confirming that Mr Shortt was established as a Walt and all is well but how embarrasing he went on to walt at RAF Leeming, Alconbury (?), HMS Mercury, HMS Sultan and the Cabinet bunkerdoos. But no. The Chief gave Chief Supt Hogben the duty to respond. Then I thought Regina v Bembridge 1783 (as you would) I will write to Mr Hogben and charge him with duties. So I sent him a witness list for interview. Kent Police dropped inquiry. High Court time. Don't put money on a Judge allowing this leave to seek Judicial Review How unthinkable would it be to damage public confidence in the Chief constables to have operational independence in matters vital to the defence of the realm. I have sought an interim remedy which is for the High Court to summons Kent Chief constable in camera so he answers to his only master which is the law itself. The Chief Clerk Kent Magistrates has written for me to include in the High Court file that he is unaware of any power to summons a Chief constable at Common Law to compel explanation. So I am asking the High Court whether this is correct and thus a Chief constable is answerable to no one in matters of defence of the realm. Unless you can afford a private prosecution .... The court file is in the post. My wife just announced "I knew I would do that one day". She has put my wallet through the wash. Currently legible but drying OK are the two recorded delivery receipts for the Court files.