Conspiracy by the Civil Service or just arrogance?
.....update on my continuing battle against the system .....
.....update on my continuing battle against the system .....
Background
At the recent hearing at the Peterborough Magistrates Court (considered in detail in Blog post dated 2 March), while under oath and under cross examination in the witness box, I have a suspicion that A Hannon, Official Receiver for the Cambrideshire region of the Insolvency Service, may have committed perjury when he claimed that his boss had instructed him to report the alleged incident committed by my son to the police.
At the recent hearing at the Peterborough Magistrates Court (considered in detail in Blog post dated 2 March), while under oath and under cross examination in the witness box, I have a suspicion that A Hannon, Official Receiver for the Cambrideshire region of the Insolvency Service, may have committed perjury when he claimed that his boss had instructed him to report the alleged incident committed by my son to the police.
Perjury?
Perjury is obviously a very serious allegation against an officer of the Court. With this in mind I contacted A Hannon’s superiors to ascertain the truth before formally reporting to the police that A Hannon may have been committed perjury.
Are Hannon's Superiors Protecting Him?
Perjury is obviously a very serious allegation against an officer of the Court. With this in mind I contacted A Hannon’s superiors to ascertain the truth before formally reporting to the police that A Hannon may have been committed perjury.
Are Hannon's Superiors Protecting Him?
All I ever want, and all I expect is the truth.Yet, A Hannon’s superiors – N Latif, Regional Director, Cambridgeshire Region and D Flynn, Inspector General and Agency Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service - as well as the Treasury Solicitors, refuse to answer a very simple question ‘did they instruct A Hannon to report the alleged incident to the police as A Hannon claimed while under oath?’
In a written reply to my first letter, and no doubt in response to this question, N Latif wrote:
'Because of the serious nature of your assertions I will be writing to the court for a copy of the transcript of the hearing. Once I receive this I will be in a position to consider your comments in detail'.
Following Latif’s initial response I sent him, D Flynn and the Treasury Solicitors a letter from my son’s solicitor’s confirming the statement made by A Hannon in court.
Since sending this copy letter, on five occasions I have requested of N Latif, D Flynn and the Treasury Solicitors a simple yes or no as to whether A Hannon was telling the truth in the witness box. While the only response from the Treasury Solicitors has been an acknowledgement of one of my letters, I have recived a single reply from N Latif in which he stated that:
'He saw no reason why A Hannon should not have reported the incident to the police'.
A carefully written response written in such a way to avoid denying or accepting what was stated as truth by A Hannon in court? This response seems to me to be the type of wording advised by a solicitor. You can make your own mind up.
Most recently on 11 April, I wrote to all three parties stating that unless I receive a clear yes or no to my question by 5pm today, I would report the matter to the police. There has been no response from the Treasury Solicitors or N Latif. However, D Flynn replied stating:
'You have had a response from N Latif on this question and you must take whatever steps you consider appropriate'.
As an informed reader, in considering the above facts I am sure you can form your own opinion regarding the truth in this matter.
In a written reply to my first letter, and no doubt in response to this question, N Latif wrote:
'Because of the serious nature of your assertions I will be writing to the court for a copy of the transcript of the hearing. Once I receive this I will be in a position to consider your comments in detail'.
Following Latif’s initial response I sent him, D Flynn and the Treasury Solicitors a letter from my son’s solicitor’s confirming the statement made by A Hannon in court.
Since sending this copy letter, on five occasions I have requested of N Latif, D Flynn and the Treasury Solicitors a simple yes or no as to whether A Hannon was telling the truth in the witness box. While the only response from the Treasury Solicitors has been an acknowledgement of one of my letters, I have recived a single reply from N Latif in which he stated that:
'He saw no reason why A Hannon should not have reported the incident to the police'.
A carefully written response written in such a way to avoid denying or accepting what was stated as truth by A Hannon in court? This response seems to me to be the type of wording advised by a solicitor. You can make your own mind up.
Most recently on 11 April, I wrote to all three parties stating that unless I receive a clear yes or no to my question by 5pm today, I would report the matter to the police. There has been no response from the Treasury Solicitors or N Latif. However, D Flynn replied stating:
'You have had a response from N Latif on this question and you must take whatever steps you consider appropriate'.
As an informed reader, in considering the above facts I am sure you can form your own opinion regarding the truth in this matter.
Reach your own conclusion
Whatever your conclusion, ask yourself two questions:
1. Why is it that a solicitor who acts on behalf of her Majesties Government, a Regional Director of the Insolvency Service and the Inspector General and Agency Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service refuse to answer a very simple question ‘was A Hannon instructed to report the alleged incident to the police as A Hannon claimed while under oath?’
2. Are the individuals concerned conspiring to pervert the course of justice?
Someone must hold these public servants to account and I am now left with no option but to formally report this matter to the police.
Watch this space!
Whatever your conclusion, ask yourself two questions:
1. Why is it that a solicitor who acts on behalf of her Majesties Government, a Regional Director of the Insolvency Service and the Inspector General and Agency Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service refuse to answer a very simple question ‘was A Hannon instructed to report the alleged incident to the police as A Hannon claimed while under oath?’
2. Are the individuals concerned conspiring to pervert the course of justice?
Someone must hold these public servants to account and I am now left with no option but to formally report this matter to the police.
Watch this space!
Solicitor Slayer
1 comment:
This is a very informative post, I liked reading it.
Divorce Lawyer Los Angeles
Divorce Attorney Los Angeles
Post a Comment