The 15-16 March hearing date has been confirmed. My response to the SFO's witness statement is on:

www.comparativetables.com/caserep.htm

and skeleton argument on:

www.comparativetables.com/sargument.htm

Much of the case revolves around the reinsurance treaty.

It had become common practice across the assurance sector and well known to GAD and presumably the FSA, that reinsurance treaties didn't always transfer risk. Rather they re-arranged matters either for a potential tax saving or to demonstrate improved compliance with the Solvency margin regime.

In the case of ELAS, the effect was, as observed, to enable ELAS to write business which would otherwise have been placed elsewhere or not in with profits. The FSA of that era paid little attention to the interplay of solvency and conduct of business issues. They didn't for example restrict ELAS taking on new with profits business, even after ELAS had lost the HoL case and were looking for a takeover.

The FSA got itself various immunities from legal action. Could the SFO even attempt a prosecution if it tried to establish to the necessary standards of proof both that the reinsurance was fraudulent and the FSA was complicit?

The FSA got itself various immunities from legal action.

Not if it acted in bad faith, as mentioned at paragraph 5 of the open letter:

www.comparativetables.com/reply.htm

90010 Alaric "The FSA got itself various immunities from legal action. Could the SFO even attempt a prosecution if it tried to establish to the necessary standards of proof both that the reinsurance was fraudulent and the FSA was complicit?"
======================================

An admirable question!

There was and is only one way to find out.

Win or lose at the Tribunal, you have done very well, swynn, to get so far with your FOI request. Congratulations on your hard work and persistence; and the best of luck in the legal cockpit of the Tribunal.

Can you remind us where the hearing will take place, and at what time of day, in case interested Fools can attend ?

Location is somewhere in London. Time is two days. Which is all I have been informed.

Lawyers especially Tax Avoidance Lawyers and Contract Laywers.

Many evils and scams of today and especially in the insurance business stem from the plentiful supply and use of what I call Loophole Lawyers who do their up-most to baffle but ultimately diddle investors with small print in contracts that often contradict sales literature. They abuse The English Language such that you cannot trust many words they use, like "Guarantee" that one thinks would be good but in ELAS's case was a guarantee for deductions. Glossed over and or contradicted in sales blurb but snook in by the contract.

Simple to stop this of course by a law saying that all sales literature and statements cannot be contradicted by any contract. But with such incestuous management between the gamekeepers and poachers highly unlikely.

The Pru once tried to tell me that a conifer hedge was not a fence. Fortunately the dictionary definition ( a fence formed by bushes - I was covered for fence damage!) was on my side and they paid up.

Again ELAS found contract intent as interpreted by the LL's at GAR time to all out costs. They needed better Loophole Lawyers. But as we all know the LL's were/knew/had interests in a GG win. As did VT. Contractually they actually could do what they wanted said the LL's but still found for GG's. Bu***er MUTUALITY and fairness.

Raking over old coals I know but what else does not do whilst awaiting compo?

Swynn102 - Posted # 90018

I really would like to attend this hearing if at all possible, is there a public gallery? Would you please advise me when you find out where the hearing is to take place.

Pained

"The two-day oral hearing will take place on 15th and 16th March at 10am will be held at IAC Field House (Bream Buildings, London EC4A 1DZ). I am attaching a map of the venue for your information. We have not yet been assigned a specific court room but I will notify the parties as soon as this has been fixed."

www.comparativetables.com/map.pdf

Eeyore's been looking on the EMAG website for publicity about Swynn's SFO case and hearing date, but can't find it. Makes you wonder if and when EMAG is finally going to drop its overall anti-fraud stance with all that entails, doesn't it? Strange, what with Swynn being an EMAG member and all. Couldn't find the 2011 accounts yet, either, but then Eeyores are famous dunces.

Anyway re the SFO, here we are again:

"The two-day oral hearing will take place on 15th and 16th March at 10am will be held at IAC Field House (Bream Buildings, London EC4A 1DZ). I am attaching a map of the venue for your information. We have not yet been assigned a specific court room but I will notify the parties as soon as this has been fixed."

www.comparativetables.com/map.pdf shows you how to get there. Who's going to be there, folks?

And a reminder of Swynn's skeleton argument, which given Swynn's interest in the "Reinsurance" treaty as a prelude to the Con is tersely well written. www.comparativetables.com/sargument.htm

And now to John Ward's investigative website, which is somewhat akin to Ian Fraser's. Here's its rationale:
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/about/

It seems, doesn't it, that to get any real understanding of the intricate deviousness of today's interests you have to be something of an old silver fox. Most interestingly, John believes in the princple of mutuality- so someone needs to give him a pungent update on the scandal of what's been happening in all those mutual insurers. You see, what sets them apart in the mutual movement is that they have accumulated ongoing trust funds in perpetuity, and as we know everyone has wanted a piece of that action.

Which many have unduly got, with the FSA's kind forbearance, and indeed more Godfatherly patronage.

As if we didn't know.

Eeyores truly.

Could EMAG contact/brief a reporter about the hearing? They put me in touch with the Times. But this seems to have fizzled out.

Strange, what with Swynn being an EMAG member and all.

I seem to recall Swynn saying a while back that he was tossed out of EMAG. I can't recall why, but EMAG do these things from time to time.

swynn102

"I was advised by Paul Baithwaite not to rejoin if I do not "appreciate EMAG, and its board of eight, who give their directors' services for free", or disagree with his remuneration - about which I had not expressed an opinion (87195).

Under no circumstances should the secretary of a voluntary society advise members not to rejoin. That is completely unacceptable and unforgivable. I am giving my "services for free", and in return I am advised not to rejoin!"

A familiar message, I can only say I agree with you and wish you luck with your case.

I seem to recall Swynn saying a while back that he was tossed out of EMAG.

I was advised by Paul Braithwaite not to rejoin if I do not "appreciate EMAG, and its board of eight, who give their directors' services for free", or disagree with his remuneration - about which I had not expressed an opinion (87195).

Under no circumstances should the secretary of a voluntary society advise members not to rejoin. That is completely unacceptable and unforgivable. I am also giving my "services for free", and in return I am advised not to rejoin!

4a 90050

"I seem to recall Swynn saying a while back that he was tossed out of EMAG. I can't recall why but EMAG do these things from time to time"

4a I think you mean E** do these things "regularly" i.e. toss members out. It has become a badge of honour to be tossed out of E** I wear mine with pride having been tossed off the committee when I objected to committee members drawing a salary without consulting the membership. Of course that was way, way back. Even so,
I don't think members were ever consulted about salaries being paid or very much else for that matter. Just pay - but don't ever try to have your say. It's my way or the highway!!

Good luck to you Stephen - you have done a terrific job totally voluntarily.

"I can now confirm that the two day hearing on 15th and 16th March will be held in Court Room 3 at IAC Field House (Bream Buildings, London EC1A 1DZ)."

Christopher Carnaghan and Michael Nassim, who help with the case, have kindly agreed to be "alongside".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

"Parties are not permitted to record the hearings. You, along with anyone who accompanies you, are able to take notes of the proceedings however."

Wishing you all the very best in your endeavours - we have much to be thankful for your tireless campaign in trying to expose so much that has been hidden from we poor investors over many years

I've no doubt that you are well prepared for continuing deception and dirty tricks which will no doubt be utilised by those who consider themselves the financial and regulatory elite in this country as they seek to avoid disclosing serious material information - will matters of national security be the next excuse

Best of luck swynn - we are all in your debt.

The hearing should start with a question and answer session. Obvious questions are: Were crimes committed? Is the regulator above the law? What has happened to the Penrose papers? Any suggestions for further questions? The Tribunal says:

"Parties are not permitted to record the hearings; the Tribunal Judge will explain this to you further at the start of the hearing next week. You, along with anybody who accompanies you, are able to take notes of the proceedings however."

This is inadequate. I am hiring a stenographer, especially to record the replies. That is all being well. If I do not succeed in hiring a stenographer, I will insist on a pause after each question while the reply is written down. If this disrupts proceedings, so much the better, it will encourage them to allow voice recorders into court in future.

swynn102 | Date: 10/03/2012 08:37:47 | Number: 90067

"This is inadequate. I am hiring a stenographer, especially to record the replies. That is all being well. If I do not succeed in hiring a stenographer, I will insist on a pause after each question while the reply is written down. If this disrupts proceedings, so much the better, it will encourage them to allow voice recorders into court in future."

Yep, smart move. Antagonise the judge and those that you need to convince and get the support of. You have done well up to now so don't start using tactics from EMAG's playbook of "How to lose friends and alienate people".

I hsve been given the names of the stenographer "team", the "writer" and the "editor".

The hearing has been postponed.

Author: swynn102 | Date: 14/03/2012 18:28:01 | Number: 90084

The hearing has been postponed.

At one day's notice?

What reason was given?

Why am I not surprised?

MJ

"The hearing has been postponed. "

Inexcusable!

The absolute "shysters"

The hearing has been postponed.

Strangely, I can't find it in the list of current cases dated 29 February: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/information-ri.... It is case number EA/2011/0084, isn't it? Am I looking in the wrong place?

I can't find it.

I can.

Strangely, I can't find it in the list of current cases dated 29 February: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/information-ri....... It is case number EA/2011/0084, isn't it? Am I looking in the wrong place?

It is near the bottom of page 7.

"The Tribunal Judge had a personal pension plan with Equitable Life Assurance Society. She transfered out of the plan in 2003... She is satisfied that there would be no bias but is mindful that the appellant is not represented and notes Tsols concern to avoid unnecessary appeals."

What does this mean?

What reason was given?

The hearing was postponed at 4.45 pm yesterday because the Judge withdrew. There has been no explanation why. But the explanation is promissed later today.

I have received the explanation why the judge withdrew. This is most extraordinary. But I am not permitted to say what it is. If I did so, I suppose it would be contempt of court. Should judges be able to withdraw from cases at the last moment? I thought this sort of thing went out in the middle ages! Does anyone know a journalist? This could be a good headline: "Judge withdraws from case at last moment!" "What is our legal system coming to?" "What about open justice?" etc

90099 "I have received the explanation why the judge withdrew. This is most extraordinary. But I am not permitted to say what it is. If I did so, I suppose it would be contempt of court. Should judges be able to withdraw from cases at the last moment? I thought this sort of thing went out in the middle ages! Does anyone know a journalist? This could be a good headline: "Judge withdraws from case at last moment!" "What is our legal system coming to?" "What about open justice?" etc ".
=============================================

1. It would be interesting (if permitted) to know the terms of the Direction forbidding you to say what is the reason the Judge withdrew and upon which Rule it is based.

2. Some posts ago, you asked the meaning of a note which, because it seemed quite clear to me, I left it to others to answer. As no one else has stepped forward, and without referring back to your earlier note, here is what it seemed to mean:-

"The Judge had an Equitable policy until 2003. Because of this, there might be the risk of an apearance of bias, although the Judge herself was sure she could decide the case objectively. Because sw is not legally represented, extra caution was desired by the Treasury Solicitor because the hearing might go ahead and later an appeal be based on the Judge's onetime Equitable policy conceivably having caused her bias. Hence, the safer course would be for the Judge to leave the case to one of her brethren who has never had any interest in an Equitable policy".

I realise that to some the reasoning might seem far-fetched, but it is right for those in authority to be sensitive to this sort of thing. Remember how many times posters here have harped on the Equitable policies believed to have been held by members of the House of Lords.

What may need explanation is why the Judge did not realise earlier that she might be conflicted out. Perhaps there was a change of Judge from the pretty determined lady who dealt with the earlier stages?

The Nogle 90100: "What may need explanation is why the Judge did not realise earlier that she might be conflicted out."

Can't argue with that. On first principles one must also hope that the hearing will be re-scheduled as promptly as possible. Material delay could under the circumstances otherwise be construed as telling. That said, there are the usual difficulties in reconvening all the parties.

Eeyores less "consideredly" than he recently expected.

What may need explanation is why the Judge did not realise earlier that she might be conflicted out.

She is conflicted out. But not because of her Equitable Life policy. "When reviewing the material yesterday, the Judge came across certain documents & references...". These relate to her private life. I am not permitted to disclose what this is because it is "personal". Whoever appointed the Judge should have realised she is conflicted. In my opinion they did realise. It is possible but hard to believe that this occurred to her only because of "reviewing the material".

Fools may be inclined to think that Stephen Wynn's action, and the latest non- developments are just typical legal nitpicking.

In Citymj's opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.

From the time (around 1997) when we first began to sense that something might be seriously amiss, the politicians/mandarins have pursued one primary strategy:- to suppress all of the most damaging information by all available means, legal and administrative, and to ensure that the policyholders were left chasing will-the-wisps, rather than the sensitive targets which were everywhere to be found.

Regrettably, some of the most influential Action Groups allowed themselves to be taken in by this strategy, and chased after the Treasury's false lures like a bunch of enthusiastic puppies. It also emerged that there was one group of policyholders- the "Early Joiners" who had benefitted excessively from the ELAS System, and who were very happy indeed that the details of ther good fortune should never see the light of day.

One practical problem faced by the Government is that there were various whistle blowers in possession of evidence pointing to possible criminal behaviour, and it was vital that such evidence be kept out of the public gaze. Accordingly, the SFO Was instructed to become the Government's secure one-way vault, accepting all sorts of submissions ranging from the redoubtable Lord Penrose, to the wackiest policyholders, but NEVER to investigate anything. It has performed this role most diligently, until now when it has shown signs of wilting under Wynn's un regarded flank attack, via the Information Commissioner.

As I understand the case, Wynn is saying "this information that the SFO has was always Public Interest info, but was withheld in the interests of fairness to any potential defendants. Now it is clear that there will be no such defendants, so please publish the factual data and the expert commentary that you have received, omitting defamatory material."

Fools should know by now that expectations of judial independence in such situations are more than naïve, because different judges adhere to different philosophies when major issues of State are called into question. And ELAS has become a major issue of State!
As Maggie is reputed to have asked in such situations: "Is she one of US?"

It seems that the practical answer from the Treasury Solicitors was that the designated judge could not be said to be 'a safe pair of hands', and so the issue of the long transferred PPP was wheeled out to enable a substitute to be brought in. I am at a loss to suggest where they will find a judge with no involvement in pensions whatsoever.

Doing so at the very last moment was not necessary but probably tickled their devious sense of humour.

MJ

She is conflicted out. But not because of her Equitable Life policy. "When reviewing the material yesterday, the Judge came across certain documents & references...". These relate to her private life.

Wild Guess ....

Could one of the examples have involved a relative of the Judge ? This might not have been obvious to anyone else.

90102 swynn102 "What may need explanation is why the Judge did not realise earlier that she might be conflicted out.
-----------------------------
She is conflicted out. But not because of her Equitable Life policy. "When reviewing the material yesterday, the Judge came across certain documents & references...". These relate to her private life. I am not permitted to disclose what this is because it is "personal". Whoever appointed the Judge should have realised she is conflicted. In my opinion they did realise. It is possible but hard to believe that this occurred to her only because of "reviewing the material"."
=============================

I wonder whether you mean "whoever appointed the judge" or "whoever appointed the judge to deal with (my) case"? There is a world of difference.

Because I support your cause, I must question your comment "In my opinion they did realise" (that she is conflicted). I doubt whether you have evidence to support this allegation. If not, 'twere better not made.

If this is the original judge who took such a strong line with those opposing you, her earlier handling may well suggest that she should have the benefit of the doubt. One does not know under what pressures of case handling these specialist judges are made to work.

If this is the original judge who took such a strong line with those opposing you, her earlier handling may well suggest that she should have the benefit of the doubt.

She did seem to take a strong line with the SFO and be on my side, but the following from her email yesterday seems to be just prevarication:

"Second, the information she had on the basis of which the parties would be asked to take a view, was very likely not the complete picture and it was not going to be possible to give the parties a complete picture in the time available. Any agreement by the parties could not be meaningful in such circumstances.

Third, the extent to which any such issues would become important in the appeal could not be properly assessed at the stage the panel was at yesterday. There were further files of material that had not been read. These were also closed files so the appellant could not himself take a view. Also nobody (not even the SFO) knows what is on the CD Roms and whether that would become part of the appeal."

What has this to do with whether she withdraws or not? Another passage I object to is:

"an appeal at the heart of which is the appellant's assertion that EL should have been prosecuted". Where did I say that? It is not my job to say whether people should be prosecuted. That is the job of SFO.

90106 swynn102 (Small part only) "If this is the original judge who took such a strong line with those opposing you, her earlier handling may well suggest that she should have the benefit of the doubt.

She did seem to take a strong line with the SFO and be on my side, but the following from her email yesterday seems to be just prevarication:
=========================================

1. What you have reported from her does not in any way show that she was "on your side". It merely shows a properly independent approach to your appeal.

2. Your para. commencing "second". It seems that during the hearing which was cancelled the parties were to have been asked to reach an opinion about certain information. Pure speculation, but this may well have been an opinion about how to limit the scope of a large inquiry so as on the one hand to keep it from becoming impossibly unwieldy and on the other to make it possible to give justice to swynn's case.

As I read it, the decision is the reverse of prevarication. On the contrary, it shows a conscientious approach and an intention to see that the job is done properly, with the parties given enough time and material to reach a sustainable view and a PARTIAL resolution so that the issues can be confined to agreed limits. This is the type of admin. which a High Court Master is there to sort out and does sort out in advance of the main hearing of a substantial case in the High Court.

3. Your para. commencing "Third". See 2. above, which this text reinforces. I agree that (like "second" above), this does not seem to relate to the judge withdrawing. However it DOES relate to whether the hearing should have gone ahead on the date which had been set. The judge clearly felt that it should not, and I think would have put it off anyway, even if she had not felt obliged to recuse herself on grounds of possible conflict.

4. Your final para. I think you are right to object to this statement.

Does anyone know Paul Weir's telephone number so I can talk to him about finding a journalist?

Please could EMAG find/brief a journalist? I have sent Paul Weir the email from the judge explaining why she withdrew (personal parts removed) and asked him several times this afternoon to find a journalist for me. What more can I do?

swynn102
....What more can I do?

....

Stay calm. We have all followed your determined challenge to the SFO with fascination and ever-growing respect for your digity and integrity.

However frustrating the antics of the other side, you are building an even greater reservoir of "justice is on my side" which should serve you well when the case does come on. I fear that the press-handling in some of EMAG's stunts would cheapen your argument and risk the opposite. What do other fools think?

In the meantime, open a bottle and enjoy a well-earned tipple.

Excellent post 90111 from citymj which as far as I at least am concerned says everything there is to say concerning the persistent, prolonged and ruthlessly determined resolve by successive Gvts. and the Treasury to bring down a figurative curtain between ELAS victims and the truth which is as impenetrable as for many years was that which eventually fell in Berlin some 22 years ago.

Swynn is of course not permitted to tell us upon precisely what grounds the judge appointed to hear his case decided, at the final hour, that ethically she could not proceed. That secrecy - in effect a gagging of Swynn - is in itself, surely, an admission of complicity in something unsavoury? It is stretching credulity rather too far to believe that a woman of presumably high intelligence and intellectual ability (one assumes she is, as she is a Judge!) did not realise some time before this that because of family connections she was precluded from professional judicial involvement. The strong arm of the Treasury does, indeed, reach far and its one-way vault is indeed, protected by a door the strength of which is yet to be ultimately tested!

As far as press/media coverage is concerned, is this not something in which the BBC could become interested? If there is to be journalistic involvement - and there certainly ought to be - then it needs to be that of someone or some organisation of as near immaculate reputation and integrity as is possible to find.

In the meantime I can only extend to Swynn my unbounded admiration for his dogged determination to uncover at least some of the truth behind a decade or more of cover-ups and lies. The fact that the hearing has been cancelled at the last moment, after months of prevarication, just goes to show how scared "they" all are.

As someone else suggested earlier, have yourself a glass or three, Swynn, raise a toast to yourself for what you have achieved so far, have a good night's rest and rise on the morrow resolved to take up the sword again. You have nothing to lose (having presumably already had it stolen from you!). "They" have!!

We are all with you.

90111 "swynn102
....What more can I do?

....

Stay calm. We have all followed your determined challenge to the SFO with fascination and ever-growing respect for your digity and integrity.

However frustrating the antics of the other side, you are building an even greater reservoir of "justice is on my side" which should serve you well when the case does come on. I fear that the press-handling in some of EMAG's stunts would cheapen your argument and risk the opposite. What do other fools think?

In the meantime, open a bottle and enjoy a well-earned tipple."
===========================================

Of course I respect and support swynn in his fight for proper disclosure of what the SFO didn't do and won't explain about Equitable. It is much to his credit that when I offered him limited financial help about his case he declined it.

However UNDILUTED support is not possible so long as he writes here talking to himself and refuses or neglects to reply to comment on what he has posted here, presumably in the hope that we will sympathise and support him.

As to how he can, at this very late stage in his chances to do so, interest a journalist, Weir is for sure his best bet, even though EMAG have not been seen to support swynn's case practically as they should be doing.

Weir is honest and very competent. If he is unable, or is prevented by EMAG policy, to help swynn even in private, it will be a pretty pass.

In that, surely most unlikely, event, Randall may be dangerous by reason of previous attachments, many journos must be dismissed for ignorance, and his best approach may be a serious letter to the FT.

If that fails, as a similar effort failed me long ago, he could try Private Eye. The Eye failed me at the same time, but may well have learned from its early neglect to attend to matters Equitable.

Conflicted out! Tres drole. A certain law lord was not conflicted out at the HoL ruling - but then he appeared conflicted in.

I have sent Paul Weir the email from the judge explaining why she withdrew (personal parts removed) and asked him several times this afternoon to find a journalist for me. What more can I do?

Ask him if he will permit you to rejoin EMAG so they can sponsor your campaign.

The SFO have been taking an excessively long time about proposing a new date for the hearing. Christopher Carnaghan proposed a deadline, which I suggested to the Judge who has suggested this to the SFO. They have until 5pm to reply.

The SFO are having difficulty finding a suitable "witness" to represent them at the hearing. They have been given until 16th April to "make an announcement on this issue".

swynn: They have been given until 16th April to "make an announcement on this issue".

Assuming we are talking about 16 April 2012, I'm wondering what swynn will hear tomorrow.

Can't wait to read of the SFO's latest tawdry trick to delay further.

If only they had someone in there with a bit of moral fibre.

Can't wait to read of the SFO's latest tawdry trick to delay further.

Well spotted! The SFO will apply tomorrow for a postponement of the date when they have to come up with a witness, specifically: "the SFO intends to seek an extension of time under Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 6(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009".

90338 "Can't wait to read of the SFO's latest tawdry trick to delay further.

Well spotted! The SFO will apply tomorrow for a postponement of the date when they have to come up with a witness, specifically: "the SFO intends to seek an extension of time under Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 6(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009".
============================================

This may well start to irritate the Judge.

One hopes you have lodged an objection seeking at least reasons, upon which you would want to comment, before a decision is made.

swynn: The SFO will apply tomorrow for a postponement of the date when they have to come up with a witness, specifically: "the SFO intends to seek an extension of time under Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 6(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009".

swynn: do you remember my 89919: http://boards.fool.co.uk/sfo-12481983.aspx

Might it be worth an approach [appeal?] to Dominic Grieve in his role as Attorney General and Head of the CPS Inspectorate? Any thoughts anyone?

I believe that the CPS too has a bit of history. However this is an opportunity for Grieve to help clean up a little and being a good Christian he might just see here a bit of deceit, immorality and skulduggery on the part of the SFO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Grieve

If only they had someone in there with a bit of moral fibre

If there was only somebody somewhere in this wretched Adminstration with a bit of moral fibre......

"If there was only somebody somewhere in this wretched Adminstration with a bit of moral fibre......"

There isn't, Bienterry.

It is not only with regard to ELAS that the total absence of integrity, probity, moral fibre is becoming daily more evident. Even those members of the current Administration who did, occasionally, appear before the 2010 Election not to have forgotten utterly the traditional British values of honour and decency, have now very evidently lost them in either their desperation to remain in office regardless of the approprium in which they are held by the populace, or in their desire to attain the same high office (and income) as their erstwhile fellow back-benchers. The flagrant reversal by Cameron of his pre-Election promise that there would be no top-down reform of the NHS is perhaps the most outstanding example. (This should not surprise us,I suppose, given the number of well-heeled politicians who have shares in private health companies and who stand to make a bomb in years to come!)

Speaking personally, never, ever again will I trust any silver-tongued politician who appears sympathetic to my interests or those of my fellow citizens. They are not! Their sole interest, collectively, is their own interest!

I applaud the evident determination of a number of ELAS victims who continue to believe - against, as far as I can see, any credible evidence - that one day justice will be done and campaign accordingly. That hard and cruel facts are that we are old and getting older and no one in Gvt. gives a damn about us. Since we are net consumers, not contributors, of what remains of the diminishing public purse, are high users of the NHS, are occupying homes that many politicians would rather like to see being made available to our immigrant population, receive winter fuel allowances and bus passes that the Gvt. dearly wish they could take away but dare not, how can we expect any extra "concession" by way of ELAS compensation?

"Disgusted" (with the Gvt., not EMAG or the stoical campaingners) of West Sussex.

More woe at the SFO.

Yet another excuse to request delay further?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6938ce04-8965-11e1-85b6-00144...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a1c499bc-5736-11e1-869b-00144...

swynn: Well spotted! The SFO will apply tomorrow for a postponement of the date when they have to come up with a witness, specifically: "the SFO intends to seek an extension of time under Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 6(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009".

Dare I ask what happened?

The SFO has been given until 4th May to appoint a new witness who is likely to be the new director, David Green.

90385 "The SFO has been given until 4th May to appoint a new witness who is likely to be the new director, David Green."
========================================

Ahhhhh!

Now one gets it.

You put up a witness who knows nothing about the case, so that he can "quite properly" refuse to answer any questions about what happened and why.

Brilliant! We should be very proud.

noglethorpe: You put up a witness who knows nothing about the case, so that he can "quite properly" refuse to answer any questions about what happened and why.

Brilliant! We should be very proud.

Thought exactly the same as I read it.

Is it any wonder that the law and all those involved with it - from Parliament down to PC - are held in such low regard?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6d8b01de-8fa0-11e1-98b1-00144...

At the very least Green is likely to request more time. But it is just possible - I know I'm fantazising - that Green might just take the view that as a new boy he has nothing to hide, that he would like to make a new start and open up the books - but there again pigs might fly!

swynn: The SFO has been given until 4th May to appoint a new witness who is likely to be the new director, David Green.

............. and thank you swynn. Mental note made of May 4th - Friday of next week.

Best wishes

d

The SFO witness will be one of their lawyers, Mr Satnam Tumani.

Well, he is one of those rare beasts who even qualified as a solicitor at the SFO.
Couldn't really refuse the task could he?

He appears to be the head of the anti-corruption unit nowadays.

The hearing will take place on 16th to 17th July starting at 10 am.

The hearing will take place on 16th to 17th July starting at 10 am.

I have just noticed that it is JULY! For goodness sake. Just what on earth are all of those involved with this decision up to?

Having been at the SFO since 1995, Mr Tumani might well be capable of handling the ELAS case but it is to be hoped that new head Mr. Green instructs clean-up rather than allow himself to become part of the cover-up.

Recent events suggest that the latter has the risk of being exposed in due course. Messrs Green and Tumani have a couple of months to reflect on this. Is it any wonder that HD looks old beyond his years. With his Libya adventures exposed he should wake up every morning wondering if the ELAS cover up is to see the light of day.

Note to Mr Green: Do the right thing and let these papers see the light of day. It is the right thing to do.

"The two-day oral hearing taking place on 16th and 17th July (with a start time of 10am) will be held in Court Room 7 at Field House (15 Breams Building, London, EC4A 1DZ)."

swynn: Been thinking about you. May I wish you every success for next week!
d

The hearing on Monday will be in court room 1 (rather than court room 7),  in the same building.

Now changed to court room 6.

good luck to all today