The first thing to be pointed out is that there is Terrorism Law applicable to civil nuclear security. So what can be written must not be information that could be useful to an enemy.
(1) ACAB was baited a little while back about taking a picnic to Dungeness. A backup generator engineer had come forward with historical information about the emergency shut down diesel generator(s) at Dungeness A. This information was reported to the nuclear watchdog and an inspectorate inquiry appears to have resulted. There were shut downs at Dungeness B after the St Judes Day storm and again, I think, in December. Both reported as successful emergency shut downs. These exercises appear to have been complete coincidence.
Dungeness A decommissioned in 2006 although parts of its circuitry may still provide an extra layer of emergency support to the operational Dungeness B.
(2) It has long since been largely derided on ARRSE that Kent Police have long been provided witness statement from an anti nazi league source. This is about a group of men who embraced far right politics and who often entertained European (Nazis ?) in Kent. Amongst the English group there was an ostensible left wing militant shop steward employed at a manufacturer of backup generators. There was a man who was later arrested with 20 others in 1987 for paramilitary activity within the TA. We know that man was also an adult leader of a private military cadet group. And we know that another such adult leader is an associate of the ubiquitous James Shortt. We know that another adult leader was a Reliance guard at Deal RM Barracks 88/89. We know that, in spite of security complaints in 88/89 Kent Police never checked the man's REME Record. We know that the first check on Corps Secretariat records was raised by a member of the public in the late 90s (ten years after the terrorist bombing of the barracks) and we know that after the check was conducted REME called in MOD Police.
(3) After the arrests of the 21 TA paramilitaries in 1987 Kent Police did not bring charges. In spite of missions to Ireland and possession of explosives. Strangely inquiries of CPS about Unlawful Drilling Act charges seem to indicate that it was NOT them who made a public interest decision not to charge the men. Similarly inquiries of the Attorney General seem to indicate the public interest decision, to let the paramilitaries off, was not taken under the 1936 Act by Attorney General. So who took the decision. Indeed CPS chose to hold a report of all this for disclosure to defence if ever anyone is charged with the 1989 bombing of Deal Barracks.
(4) So Kent Police let the TA paramilitaries off. They did not inform the Royal Marines or make inquiries with REME. They refused crime complaints of sabotage of backup generators (such as those at civil nuclear plant).
(5) Evidence is that Kent Police officers were involved in the paramilitary live fire training activity at a Thanet gun range.
(6) In about 2009 James Shortt was exposed as bogus ex SAS. In the light of this, Kent Chief constable Mike Fuller initially ordered inquiries including into the history of the Thanet range. FIRST QUESTION. Are the reporting of knowledge or suspicion mandatory requirements of Terrorism Law (Like Sections 54 and 5 as applicable to a Chief constable as they are to the rest of us ? Who better to tell us than a judge. So a Judicial review application was submitted to Royal Courts of Justice against Mike Fuller's decision to drop inquiry as soon as witnesses, to Middle Easterners using Uzis at the Thanet range whilst off duty Kent Police were instructing, were identified. His decision to refuse to gather the evidence. To reverse his earlier order.
Given what happened at Yetgoch and that Fuller had knowledge was he not under a Terrorism Act duty to report his knowledge to Dyfed Powys Police and the lead police the Met ?
The judicial review file did not access a judge it was stolen by person unknown from the registry of RCJ. As you know not that long before Baroness Scotland got Mr Fuller out of police into a CPS job.
(7) In 1997 Kent Police Authority called on Chief constable for inquiry and report including about the range. In 1999, in spite of concerns from Sir Ronnie Flanagan of RUC Home Secretary Jack Straw refused to compel inquiry, called for by Kent Police Authority, into Deal Barracks history, gun range activity, sabotage and paramilitary activity within TA.
( In 2000 a Terrorism Act came into force with mandatory reporting provision.
(9) At a time that Act was in force Jack Straw was in cabinet for post 9 11 decisions about invading Iraq. Clearly he went to those cabinet meetings with knowledge of reports from Kent. Wasn't he under a duty to report his knowledge (Middle Easterners training at English gun ranges, sabotage against key and vital points) to Met Police and Dyfed Powys Police ? And what about the 9.11 inquiry questions about tower 7 backup generator rogue operation ? That didn't ring a bell with Mr Straw ?
So is the law truly effective ? When de facto the whole country ends up relying on decisions (of questionable legality) being taken by one force ? And when we look at those decisions they all appear to have been taken in house (Not by CPS Not by Army REME Not by Attorney General) within Kent Police.
This is a question for Lord Carlile and the independent reviewer QC of Terrorism Law.
A council loves that law when it comes to snooping in residents rubbish bins. But how many have a policy for obeying the reporting provisions ? None I think. University research programmes have a policy. What about Police and Police Crime Commissioners ? They don't have a policy for compliance with the reporting provision of the law.
So what happened in Kent with a gun range ? Earthworks were done to alter range architecture without planning consent. The council fails to enforce planning or noise nuisance law (Including machine gun fire nuisance). So at the very first stage of detecting something untoward we rely on a council which has no policy to obey the law requiring that they report such firearms misuse knowledge to the police. It may be that the council thought it was no point in reporting it to Kent Police any more than reporting mischief at the blood bank to Dracula.
What of our ole mate Jimbo ? Sections 54 and 58 not apply to James then ?
Surely, ACAB and Co, it isn't a simple matter of decrying complaint as conspiracy theory ?
Doesn't the law provide a statutory defence for those involved in weapons training ? IE It is a defence if they can show that the training they conduct, indulge in or have knowledge of is WHOLLY for purposes other than that related to a terrorist threat. So the evidence of fact of the activity is available. Surely it would now be for the participants (Including Kent Police Officers) to enlighten us what statutory defence they could make ?
I rather think that what might be unhelpful to James cause is his history of falling out with former disciples. Here I mention Yetgoch for example. And 1996 letters between IBA and PBA. Did Jimbo have no concerns after the letter from PBA ? Jimbo must have been sure that everyone he fell out with in his walt mitty military world was in fact a good guy. Wonder why he fell out with them then ?
In short there is now an inquiry raised re one essential backup genny installation. Raised independent of Kent Police. And there appears to be a whole list of public interest questions about the application of law with it applying to Chief constables just as it applies to the rest of us.