Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Why Did Police Deliberately Mislead a Member of Parliament?

After several weeks delay, Hampshire police have finally replied the Member of Parliament for East Hampshire, Damian Hinds, who raised questions about their investigations into my affairs, following the police raid on our home shortly after publication of my memoirs. 

The reply, signed by a female detective inspector who was not even on the team that invaded us, included four provable inaccuracies which my MP is now putting to Hampshire police.

It has been protocol in the UK for many generations that a serving Member of Parliament asking questions of a private organisation receives a reply from the managing director, chief executive or chairman.  Equally, all questions to government departments are answered by ministers, not civil servants. 

So was the discourtesy shown to Damian Hinds MP deliberate, or sheer ignorance on the part of the Chief Constable, Andy Marsh?  Perhaps Simon Hayes, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire, who appointed Mr Marsh immediately after his own election in 2013, can explain. 

Much more crucial than such a discourtesy, however, were the serious inaccuracies in the detective inspector’s letter to Mr Hinds.  Was its purpose to mislead a serving Member of Parliament?  If so, that raises some fundamental questions about senior police management in Hampshire.

Facts are facts and the letter to Mr Hinds has four of them wrong. 

1. The letter refers to the officers present during the police raid explaining why they were there, and ends with the words “relating to the misuse of Mr Mote’s parliamentary allowances”.   Not true.  They did not.  Nor was DI who signed the letter present.  At the time, the officers present were evasive and vague, as my contemporaneous notes confirm.  Either those on the team lied to the DI, or she made a wrong assumption.

2. The search warrant the police waved on their arrival in March made several references to activities which took place – and ended – well before I was elected an MEP.  For example, one of Britain’s top constitutional lawyers, Leolin Price, QC (sadly now deceased) is named on the search warrant.  My work with him, concerning the way in which the British constitution was being undermined by the EU, went back over a decade.

Such speculative fishing for information confirms that my parliamentary allowances were not the only alleged reason for the search warrant.  My past political activities were also of interest, but they were ignored in the DI’s reply. 

So a new question arises : why are the EU bureaucrats, who obviously briefed the UK police, interested in tracking my political activities several years before my election in 2004?  There are only two possible – and equally cynical – explanations. 

Either the EU’s investigative arm, (known by the acronym OLAF) has stretched the use of its powers to the limit, or MI5 and/or GCHQ might just have been following my activities as a known anti-EU activist.  Unlikely, but possible.

Paragraph 5 of EU regulation 1073/1999, which extended the role of OLAF, reads : “…the responsibility of the Office as set up by the Commission extends beyond the protection of financial interests [of the EU] to include all activities relating to safeguarding Community interests against irregular conduct…” (There is no definition of “irregular”.)

This sweeping power, which the EU gave itself, to investigate anyone and any organisation before, during or since their having any direct involvement with the EU, is awesome.  It has been used before against activists in the UK, and abroad.  There is also good reason to believe that that part of OLAF is more akin to a secret service than to an accountable EU institution.

How else would Hampshire police, right now, be asking questions – by letter - of some of my friends and political acquaintances about their activities more than a decade ago?

If the DI’s letter to Mr Hinds had been correct in its assertions those individuals would not now be under investigation themselves.  And how did the police acquire their addresses?     Only their phone numbers were on my mobile phone directory seized during the raid.

3.  The police’s reply also claimed that questions relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could not be answered “without more detail as to what was not followed”.  Yet full details were set out in my own letter to the Chief Constable on 23 April.  Again, the DI had either been misled or the police were being evasive.  Either way, their obfuscation can only have been deliberate. 

4. Finally, the letter’s author argues that there were no “unspecified offences”.  Such a reply was obviously written without reference to the original search warrant which mentions only “offences”.  If “offences” exist at all, they were all “unspecified”.  The words used in the warrant were “relating to the offences”.  Nowhere were they specified, and nowhere was the word “alleged” used - in qualification, or at all.  

To this day I still have not the faintest idea what the raid on our home was all about.  I left the European Parliament in 2009 and published my memoirs in 2013.   At the time of writing, the police are still not willing to explain themselves - even to my lawyers.

They complain that they need more time.  I’ll bet they do!

Thursday, 18 July 2013

Latest Curious Developments following Police Raid

 Three more clues…following the police raid on my home after publication of my book (details left) 

* No denials.

* Alarm amongst EU bureaucrats? 

* The police investigation has expanded.  They are now asking about events even before I was elected a Member of the European Parliament.

1. No denials

Since publication of A Mote in Brussels’ Eye earlier this year not one EU institution or bureaucrat has made any denial whatsoever of any statement, fact, claim or criticism levelled against them as EU institutions or individuals.

It is now clear that the book has been scrutinised in Brussels for many weeks and the only response has been the police raid.

2.  Alarm amongst EU Bureaucrats? 

During my time in Brussels the European Investment Bank – an institution of the EU financed by European taxpayers - financed the BBC with a string of soft loans totalling over 200 million euros in barely four years.   To the best of my knowledge to this day none of it has been repaid by the BBC. 

Requests to the EIB for specific information were never answered, written Parliamentary Questions routinely evaded.  In my experience, the EIB was one of the most secretive institutions of the EU. 

Attempts to question the EIB’s senior officials during my time on the European Parliament’s Budget Control Committee were always thwarted by the socialist chairman.  On one famous occasion he managed to ignore me until the EIB officials were preparing to go, when he finally turned and asked if I had any questions.  As I started to speak they packed their briefcases and walked out. 

Well, it seems that publication of my memoirs, A Mote in Brussels’ Eye has suddenly and unexpectedly produced a change of heart at the EIB.  This week I received an email from the bank’s PR department offering me a “free” bi-monthly e-newsletter to “keep you abreast of the EIB’s recent activities in Europe and around the world”.

I declined on the grounds that I had no time to waste reading yet more EU propaganda.  I was already thoroughly familiar with it, thank you.

3.  Police Investigation has Expanded

Since they still have it, it seems the police are now going through the extensive list of numbers on my mobile phone.  Are they contacting each person listed?  Are they tracing every call or text message?   And how have they now acquired the private addresses of some of those individuals?  Spooky.  And all this is taking months and adding to the British taxpayers’ ever-growing bill. 

Two of my closest political associates have already been contacted by Hampshire police who apparently now feel free to investigate my affairs BEFORE I was elected.  Originally, it seemed, they were interested only in what I did whilst in Brussels as a Member of the European Parliament.

Not any more.  This may be turning into a witch hunt…

Quite what my private life and political activities before I stood as a candidate in 2004 have got to do with the British police some ten years later is proving to be yet another mystery.

The trigger is obviously publication of my memoirs, but what could possibly have happened before my election to interest the police?

Perhaps I should remind them that they too, as individuals, were and still are subject to EU regulations and endless interference in their private lives.  Furthermore, as former constituents of mine they might view my (now very public) record in Brussels as a real effort to protect their interests, especially as taxpayers. But we shall doubtless come to that soon enough – once they have questioned all my contacts.

Who says we don’t live in a police state?

One of the many anti-EU projects I was involved in a decade or so ago, and which now appears to interest the British police, was launched – but failed to spark sufficient interest at the time – under the acronym DARTT

This was the action plan which launched DARTT :

All potential supporters and activists were asked to make a list of all local business areas – shops, offices, industrial estates, business parks, market traders, commercial areas, high streets, main roads, and nooks and crannies out of town.

Visit the owners or managers of all the small and medium-sized businesses in your area. Visit every business you can find. Don’t worry if it takes a few weeks.

Even churches and village halls are now covered by regulations – so visit the vicar and chairman of the parish council, too.

Give each and every one a copy of [this project] and the standard letter.


a) tens of thousands of business owners will be writing similar letters to their local trading standards offices and other agencies.

b) sending this letter may protect their business in future. The very act of sending it, regardless of the reply, may be defence evidence if they were ever prosecuted.

FINALLY - ask them to let us have copies of any replies they receive.

You could even write to some of these agencies yourself, saying you are
thinking of starting a business.

Please send separate letters to each of the following agencies in your area.  All the addresses are in your local phone book

Trading Standards Office, Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency and any other national regulatory bodies covering your particular business sector.  For example, food, finance and care homes all have separate government agencies controlling standards.

A Message to all Business Owners

DARTT is a direct action group committed to resisting the increasing control
of the UK from Brussels. We are strictly non-party political. Our strength will be in the numbers of people who participate.

We will devise and manage frequent, nation-wide actions aimed at causing maximum
trouble to the bureaucrats in Brussels and their subordinates in Whitehall.

Each campaign will be lawful, peaceful and cause no damage to people or property.

We are currently asking the owners and managers of all businesses in the UK
to write letters to the various regulatory bodies enforcing EU and UK law on
their commercial enterprises. The text follows.

PLEASE NOTE: the very act of writing such letters may help your defence if –
at some time in the future – you were unfortunate enough to be prosecuted
for a breach of the regulations. You will be able to argue and prove that
you attempted to find out!

DRAFT standard letter:

Dear Sirs,

I understand that there are currently some 30,000 European Union regulations
and directives in force in this country, in addition to the laws of the United Kingdom.

It has also been drawn to my attention that, if I were ever to be in breach of any of them, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Would you therefore be kind enough to let me know which of these laws, directives and regulations affect my business currently or might do so in the future. I should be glad to receive full details.

This will enable me to ensure that I am acting in full compliance.

Yours truly
(signed owner/proprietor)

PS: I would also appreciate regular updates as new regulations and directives are introduced, so that I can keep within the law.

 (Full details of A Mote in Brussels' Eye, and how to get a copy from Amazon and other sellers, are listed in the column on the left)

Saturday, 15 June 2013

The Mystery Deepens and the Silence is Deafening

It is now over three months since the police raid on my home, following publication of my memoirs based on five years in the European Parliament – A Mote in Brussels’ Eye

Despite several letters to the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire I still do not know :

·   Why the raid took place at all
·   On what grounds the police were granted a search warrant
·   By whom, and at what court the warrant was signed
·   Why it referred to “the offences” without explanation, clarification or the use of the qualifying  word “alleged”
·   Who or what organisation persuaded the police to act
·   Why they did not talk to me first, assuming there was anything to talk about
·   Why they have kept my mobile phone for so long
·   Why they have retained a few papers since early March, none of which can be of any relevance to anyone else, having returned the rest almost immediately
·   Why they have refused to answer any questions or explain themselves
·   Why their silence has been deafening.

In addition to all that, my entirely reasonable questions seeking an explanation of Chief Constable Andy Marsh’s prima facie breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also remain unanswered.  So do my questions to Hampshire’s newly-elected Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Hayes, who seems not to have exercised his own responsibilities to challenge the Chief Constable under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Section 1(7). 

Since he appointed Andy Marsh as the new Chief Constable only days after his election as Commissioner, Simon Hayes’ apparent conflict of interest raises an important question – why do we need a Police and Crime Commissioner and all the expense of an entirely new level of bureaucracy if the police are not held to account?   
A written question about the police raid on my home was asked in the European Parliament and answered by the Lithuanian Commissioner for Taxation, Customs, Statistics, Audit and Anti-Fraud”, Algirdas Semeta.  He denied any knowledge of my affairs since 2010.  It is always possible, of course, that he was being economical with the truth, as the European Commission so often is.   
A letter from my MP Damian Hinds to the Home Secretary was side-stepped by the junior minister Damian Green who took three pages to say I should complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Evasion at every turn.

What is this really all about?

Over the last decade or so I have devoted the bulk of my professional time and energies, to say nothing of the public money available to me via the EP, researching and exposing the EU’s institutionalised fraud and systemic corruption.

Not only have I recorded much of the detail in my memoirs, but I have twice taken several boxes of carefully documented and thoroughly researched evidence to the Serious Fraud Office (all of which was ignored on both occasions, and dismissed with contempt), to Scotland Yard (ditto), to a committee of the House of Lords (whose europhile chairman chose to turn a blind eye) and numerous MPs on both sides of the House of Commons (who were never able to gather enough support for effective action).

I have also briefed, and provided much detail to several UK - and some foreign - journalists (not one of whom could persuade their respective editors to run a story).

Now I find myself apparently being investigated by the very same people and institutions against whom I blew the whistle, aided and abetted by the British police who chose to ignore the evidence presented to them years ago. 

It was bad enough that the police failed to provide support, thanks and investigative vigour when I first approached them.  But it is even more intolerable, many years later, for those same British police to have scandalously undertaken the dirty work of the iniquitous bureaucracy in Brussels who are now so obviously desperate to trace my informants within their own ranks.

That is the only credible explanation why, after a delay of some three years, barely a month passed after publication of A Mote in Brussels’ Eye before the arrival of the police, without warning and in force, at my home.

I still await answers… and so will the EU.  I will never reveal my sources.

PS: Amazon has just reduced the price of my book to £3.70.

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Update on Police Raid - 7 May 2013

After two months, the police still refuse to explain themselves.

Cash and most documents have been returned, without explanation, but I still have no idea why the police chose to invade my home on 5 March.  Nor why they have kept my mobile phone and a few other papers, none of which can be of the slightest interest to the police or anyone else.

The Chief Constable of Hampshire, Andy Marsh, has refused to reply both to a Subject Access Request (which allows individuals to know what data is held on them by official bodies) and to a Freedom of Information Request.   Nor have the police revealed the name of the JP who signed the search warrant, the law court at which he or she sits, nor the information provided to secure the signature.

The newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire, Simon Hayes, whose website carefully avoids telling the county’s taxpayers how much he and his new office cost every year, has not so much as acknowledged my three letters asking for his assistance.

Only possible explanation for both the police raid and the deafening official silence ever since is that the EU is furious at the contents of my memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye.  Has Brussels persuaded the UK authorities to try to find out who my sources were?  If so, serious questions about due legal process and the rule of law will emerge later.

Meanwhile, I’m not telling.

Leverson or not, a confidential source is just that.  Having started professional life decades ago as an investigative journalist I well understand the principle and am committed to it.

Elsewhere in Brussels, a Member of the European Parliament has put down a written question to the European Commission asking if any EU institutions were involved in briefing the UK police and, if so, why?  We know part of the answer already.  The EU has demanded a refund of all my parliamentary allowances during my five years as an MEP.  That effectively confirms that the real purpose is to uncover my sources.

The drama continues...

Other Angles

My book has apparently become a source of information about the personality and character of Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, now that he and his party have emerged as a serious threat to the Tories. 

A Mote in Brussels’ Eye records our work together in the early days, our clashes and separation after the 2004 election, and my first-hand experience of Farage and how he operates.

My earlier book OverCrowded Britain, which started life as a draft UKIP manifesto pledge on uncontrolled EU immigration, has suddenly become a sought-after source of information – for obvious reasons. 

While stocks last, I have reduced the cost on Amazon to £1.99, plus postage.  Each copy is signed, and comes with two free pamphlets – J’Accuse…! and We Want Our Country Back.

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Publish book - Get turned over by Police

No, I am not making this up.

My memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye describing my five years in the Brussels lunatic asylum came out as an eBook at the end of January.

Barely five weeks later, on March 5 to be precise, nine policemen arrived unannounced at my front door armed with a warrant to search our home.  

Much of my book details my efforts on behalf of the taxpayers of SE England to expose the gross misuse of public funds by the EU, and hold them accountable.

Such an unusually fast reaction by Brussels tells me they are both very angry and terrified. My book is obviously causing them trouble.

The police team were from the Economic Crime Investigation Team based in Netley, Hampshire. The Chief Constable of Hampshire has already been asked to explain himself.

The search warrant the police carried had been indecipherably signed only the day before by a Justice of the Peace. It was apparently based on an EU accusation that I used public funds to investigate them!

No, I am still not making this up.

It seems I should not have paid anyone to assist my work - not anti-EU organisations, whistleblowers, current and former members of EU staff, forensic accountants, one of the UK’s most pre-eminent constitutional lawyers (Leolin Price QC, no less) or any other lawyers – to say nothing of the scores of individuals with knowledge of wrong-doing who sought me out over the years.

The police took away a few documents which they thought relevant – but one was from the EU itself, demanding money with ill-disguised menaces! 

But they also took every penny of cash they found in the house on the grounds that this was a “money-laundering” exercise! That afternoon I couldn’t even pay the milkman!

Happily my book was already doing well. Now it’s doing even better. If you haven’t seen it yet, this blogspot has all the details.