13apr00. Email to Dear Mr Catt,
You have asked for information relating to the disciplinary process. I hope that the following helps you.
The Home Office, in common with other Government Departments, has an internal discipline procedure. This can be instigated by a letter of complaint from a member of the public.
Where there are grounds for believing that misconduct has occurred, there will be an investigation. If the investigation shows that there has, on the balance of probability, been misconduct, consideration is given as to whether formal disciplinary action would be appropriate. If so, the subject of that action is advised accordingly and given the opportunity to put forward any further information.
An appropriate penalty is then awarded.
There is a right of appeal against both the decision and the penalty.
Su McLean-Tooke Sex Offences Review Team
The following was on the back of the 13apr00 email that -Tooke sent to me.
> From: Ivor Catt <email@example.com>
> To: Frank Zepezauer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Betty Moxon <email@example.com>; Robert Whiston
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; Melanie Phillips
<email@example.com>; Pizzey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: False alleg Pandora's Box
> Date: 11 April 2000 13:59
> cc my MP Kerry Pollard
[part of longer email] Thank you for that reasoned response. You make some excellent points. It would be really helpful if we could discover what percentage of each of the three examples [of false allegations] is. Weren't all three types included in that one third mismatch discovery? Didn't the black man who was one of those recently released (after 18 years in prison) when not even his DNA matched, admit to having sex with a woman but denied it was rape? Imagine how that happened? [Presumably the confession was beaten out of him. - IC]
Kevin Greene in Orange County served 17 years for "raping" his wife, and then the DNA evidence proved it wasn't him, and she said "I thought it was him"?! Wha? ........................................John Knight
To Zeppy from Ivor Catt.
re email 10 April 2000 23:36
This stuff really makes my hair stand on end. I just phoned Robert Whiston, and he tried to calm me down. However, my immediate reaction is to say that we have a gold mine here. Trouble is, emailing is such a mess. I get over 100 per day, and the important stuff gets buried. Robert Whiston just now said you were the equivalent in USA of himself (Whiston) in U.K., and that you were very good. I need to sort out who are the key contributors, and get a dialogue or multilogue between them. Perhaps it's already happening efficiently. Remember, I messed up by confusing you with another Z. Whiston just said he "sort of" knew who were contributing the most.
Completely independently, my man Lipschutz suggested that the woman who falsely accused Roy Burnett, just out of jail after 15 years for 'rape', should be jailed for 15 years. This recurs in what I read here.
The reason I am agitated is that I was invited to a Home Office conference on the subject last sep99, and they report in two weeks or so. I need to put maximum pressure on the women in the Home Office. The lead woman is Betty Moxon. Although I told her last sep99 that I needed information on the organisational structure of the Home Office, she has failed to give it to me. Obviously, we do not want to be waylaid by minions in the Home Office. Perhaps we need an efficient way for her to receive many emails showing her all our thoughts on the matter. I shall send her a copy of this email to show her that we are trying to help her, not bury her. She is at email@example.com I do not know that she is the destructive force in the Home Office. At the top, I know that we have two deeply anti-social politicians; Paul Boateng and Baroness Jay. [Jay recently repeated the discredited "one in four" figure.] However, we need to try to make sure that well motivated and constructive Home Office and Women's Unit officials survive this mess.
On 19feb00, The Daily Telegraph leader said that Home Office 'statistical' reports were deeply dishonest. On 20feb00, Melanie Phillips in the Sunday Times reiterated that Home Office reports were dishonest, and that "The
government wants more men convicted and doesn't care how.". This reinforces her charges in her 1nov99 book "The Sex Change Society ...." from tel +44 870 165 8585, p121, that "Ministers .... came to believe they were being fed misleading statistics by a feminist clique among their civil servants....".
We have to hold it against Betty Moxon that she fooled me around for six months before finally conceding that the question of false allegations does not come within the remit of anybody in government. However, that alone does
not justify us in deciding that she has to be got out of there. We don't know what pressures she is under. ................
My M.P. is messing around. After telling me that there was a "staged disciplinary process" for officials who falsify statistics etc., he messed me around for six months before today conceding that he did not know the process, and sending me off to Betty Moxon for information as to the process to be used to bring to an end the misconduct by govt officials. Through this email, please would Betty Moxon advise me on the "staged disciplinary process"?
I quote; "10april2000. Dear Mr. Catt, I refer to your letters asking for 'your staged disciplinary process'. In my letter to you in November last year I was referring to a staged disciplinary process that the civil service operate. I suggest you write to them, perhaps via Betty Moxon, as it is a civil service internal disciplinary process. Yours sincerely Kerry Pollard JP MP"
You can see why I am anxious to act in the best way when I read shattering stuff like email 10 April 2000 23:36, one para of which is reproduced above.
In England, the day after many newspapers reported that the Home Office wanted to change the law and in future require men to prove that sexual intercourse was invited (reversing the classic onus of proof in our English courts), an assertion in more than three papers which Moxon denies, a man came out of jail after 15 years when the appeal judge said the rape almost certainly never happened. Initial compensation estimated at £230 per day = £1.25 millions. (False allegation woman's name - she botched another false allegation last year - continues to be kept secret, to protect her child!)
Note that immediately after Moxon's 10sep99 conference, I reported [Ill Eagle sep99 p3] that none of the 50 attenders had the concept of a false allegation. Six months later she conceded that false allegations were not within the remit of anybody in government. Note that the FBI report that for cases tried before DNA could be identified, the DNA match fails for one third of men in jail in the US for rape. One shudders to think of the compensation payments faced by the British Govt. in future, unless our system worked better than the US system which our successive Home Secretaries study so assiduously, and also try to copy. !) [My rough calculation is that should a class action ever come to trial in the US courts for compensation for all the men (mostly black) falsely jailed for rape, the compensation total will be something like $200,000,000,000. The US govt will need to declare bankruptcy. This is where Jay and Home Office radfems are driving us. - IC, 14apr00.]
Betty Moxon of the Home Office could help by working more closely with us. Concede that it is an international problem. Obviously, the expertise is with us, and she should not continue to pretend that it is with her Home Office women, radfem or other. Our objective is to sort out all the problems surrounding actual sexual offences and false allegations. The group of 50 from the public, mostly salaried and with vested interests, that she assembled in her 10sep99 Leicester conference are clearly not going to help her to tackle this minefield. In contrast, the network which includes you and me are acting without funding, for the public interest, not for self interest.
……………….end of email which came back from -Tooke.
To Catt from Pollard, 10apr00
Dear Mr. Catt, I refer to your letters asking for "your staged disciplinary process". In my letter to you in November last year I was referring to a staged disciplinary process that the civil service operate. I suggest you write to them, perhaps via Betty Moxon [which I then did,] as it is a civil service internal staged disciplinary process. Yours sincerely Kerry Pollard JP MP.
13dec99 Second copy sent to Pollard and Moxon, 1feb00.
Third copy sent to Pollard only on 17feb00 Fourth copy sent 17mar00.
Copy sent to Chairman, St. Albans Constituency Labour Party, 28 Alma Rd., St. Albans, on 4apr00, with comment; "Please get Pollard to answer.".
To Kerry Pollard MP
From Ivor Catt
Re your letter to me dated 18nov99 (copy below), please send me information as to the "staged disciplinary process" mentioned therein.
Our plan is to announce that after an amnesty to 1july00, civil servants who are associated with research reports which have been twisted to a political agenda, and research figures falsified, after 1july00, will be dismissed. That will give enough time for the introduction of a new era of honest research reporting by civil servants in government departments. We need to have full knowledge of your "staged disciplinary process" well before that date.
The initial announcement is by way of putting this document onto my website today. It will also be announced in the next issue of Ill Eagle, which I edit.
cc Betty Moxon, Home Office.
St. Albans AL3 4JR,
+44 1727 864257
Kerry Pollard MP,
St. Albans, Herts.
Twisted journalism, twisted government reports.
I am horrified by the poor quality of recent Government reports. Worse than that, I find a consistent twisting of the reports, including falsification of key research results.
We all know that Thatcher introduced a decline into greater bias and manipulation of government statistics, which may have set the scene for what is happening today. Discussion of specific falsification in Melanie Phillips's new 1nov99 book places concern about this activity by our civil servants on a new footing.
Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society, pub Social Market Foundation 1nov99. Available from Sunday Times, 0870 165 8585.
p121 "Ministers at the Department of Social Security during Mrs. Thatcher's administration, for example, gradually came to believe they were being fed misleading statistics by a feminist clique among their civil servants which skewed the agenda in favour of single parents." Melanie's source is private discussions with Ministers.
I was at the 10sep99 Leicester conference on The Sex Offence Review, centred on rape, led by Betty Moxon of the Home Office. (Melanie discusses this review on p153/4). The reports and material feeding into that conference were twisted and anti-social. I do not know the role in Melanie's concern being played by the Home Office officials present at that conference, or how deep this sickness is entrenched in the Home office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I do know that they are producing untrue, scurrilous reports, e.g. Home Office so-called "Research Study" no. 196, and The Women's Unit's scurrilous report "Living Without Fear", where the key "statistic" on p4 totally contradicts the same "statistic" on p6. Also from the Lord Chancellor's Dept., the undated, unsigned 60pp "A Consultation Paper on contact between children and violent parents ....", which we have reported on at length. It is ignorant and slovenly. These three are appalling. My colleagues report more disgraceful, anti-social propaganda masquerading as research in recent govt reports.
Please advise me as to whether a mechanism can now be introduced which will punish govt officials who connive in producing misleading reports in future, with dismissal. I feel that individuals who know that such a disciplinary procedure is in place will in future be empowered to resist the blandishments of those other entrenched officials who want this disgraceful business to continue. It is extremely damaging, leading to fatally flawed legislation.
Best wishes, Ivor
The reply by Pollard, an ageing, happily married male Blair Babe who is not even homosexual and so is at both the start and end of his Westminster career, was silly. - IC, 13dec99
Thank you for your detailed letter dated 7nov99 regarding the veracity and presentation of Government reports.
I can assure you that no report is accepted as "gospel" by Members of parliament, regardless of whether they are on the Government or opposition side of the House. Assertions are thoroughly tested by independent, apolitical researchers in the House of Commons Library and there is always considerable feedback from eternal [sic] individuals and organisations who wish to make MPs aware of their views. Any civil servant who wrote a report which lacked objectivity, or ignored or misused data, would already face disciplinary action. As in any organisation, there is a staged disciplinary process which must be followed.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely, Kerry Pollard JP MP
6nov99. Addendum to mine of 5nov99.
Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society, 1999, p121.
"The Departments of Health and Social Security, as well as the Home Office, appear to have been particularly impressionable .... Ministers at the Department for Social Security .... gradually came to believe they were being fed misleading statistics by a feminist clique among civil servants which skewed the agenda in favour of single parents." On p160 Melanie gives as attribution for this; "private conversations with the author."
This addendum puts on notice Betty Moxon and Su MT that should such falsification recur in their reports, we have prima facie grounds for their dismissal. Hopefully, Melanie would be willing to testify at the resulting "unfair dismissal" tribunal. I fear such misconduct in view of the scurrilous nature of recent Home Office and Women's Unit reports (Living without Fear tel 0171 273 8880 signed by Straw), for instance Home Office Research Study 196, and the Home Office's funding of £3.5 millions to Stanko of Brunel (now of Royal Holloway), resulting in an anti-social, twisted report "Taking Stock" (tel 01793 413000) and others. Though Jay would oppose such dismissal, perhaps such an attempt would be the way forward towards encouraging honest reports out of our government in future. At present, led by such as Jay, Hewett, Coote, career is probably enhanced for civil servants who falsify. Ivor Catt
cc Melanie Phillips, 11 Palgrave Rd.,
London W12 9NB
cc Kerry Pollard MP,
218 Cottonmill Lane,
St. Albans, Herts.
To Su McLean-Tooke.
I attended your one day conference leading to recommendations in the Sex Offences Review that you are now writing. I was dismayed by the attitude shown by the 50 people you had invited. The lesser number of men invited were not men, but poodle-men. Such Uncle Toms always appear during a crisis in society.
I am not an individual. There is virtually no difference of view between me, Robert Whiston, Melanie Phillips, Patricia Morgan, Norman Dennis, Eugen Hock, John Campion, Valerie Riches. All these people have heavily researched the subject of family breakdown, and believe, for instance, that it is the main driving force behind allegations of sex offences and actual sex offences. No man at Leicester knew this body of knowledge, or admitted to knowing it.
You can use Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society, pub. Social Market Foundation, £12 from 0870 165 8585, as a compendium of our views. I have reached p100, and require that you particularly address pp115/116, where the idea is developed of an orthodoxy, ".... drive forward the whole programme of domestic social policy. Yet this orthodoxy is not based on concepts of fairness or justice or social solidarity." The orthodoxy she describes drives those invited by you to Leicester, and so Leicester became the tribal meeting of a special interest, destructive coterie.
Your brochure, which I quoted to you earlier, said; In carrying out a review of this kind it is vital that the views of .... those with relevant expertise, are sought and considered. .... fair way. It follows that you are required to read Melanie's book, which represents a major body of opinion. If you request it, I shall get Robert Whiston, Melanie Phillips, Patricia Morgan, Norman Dennis, Eugen Hock, Valerie Riches, to give you a written endorsement of the book, published on 1nov99. Following your reading the book, it is necessary that the report you are writing give good coverage of her book, with references. Also refer to Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family?, recently re-published, IEA tel 0171 799 2137. The back cover of the first edition refers to violence resulting from family breakdown, and so comes within your remit. Since these two books do not cover the collapse of the legal system, you can cover that by going to my The Hook and the Sting, on my website.
It is offensive, but not your fault, since your remit is sex offenses, that the only two conferences that ManKind has been invited to cover sex offenses and pimping. (Heard at Square-Bashing; "Any musicians here?" .... "Come and move this piano.") The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office keep Men's organisations at arm's length from the subject of family breakdown, which is seen as a woman's issue to be addressed primarily by sexually dysfunctional women.
encl. Melanie Phillips in Sunday Times 17/24oct99.
2sep99 To Betty Moxon, i.c. Sex Offence Review Team. Today I went onto Su McLean-Tooke's answerphone to say that I find Home Office Research Study 196; A question of evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990's very poorly done; certainly technically poor but also possibly actually advocacy to a hidden agenda (as already discussed in my 18aug99 letter). The main problem is not grammar and repetition -slovenly writing. It is their inability to separate research results from policy recommendations for the future. To gain respect, these factors have to be rigidly separated. This may mean that dialogue between myself and Moxon or McLean-Tooke will go nowhere, if they have to stand by such a very recent "research" report from their own Department. The attitude of Minette Marrin (below) and Rene Denfeld in The New Victorians pub. Simon & Schuster 1995 is totally excluded from the universe of discourse of "Research Study" 196. This leads it into socially divisive assumptions and recommendations. Following the non-sexist title of Report 196, the perfunctory dismissal of male rape in a newspaper footnote on p3 is appalling.
"It might seem logical, then, to try not to push men to such a point that they feel like litting out in large numbers. Yet that is what women seem to me to be doing. All around me .... men who are cracking, who are at last very angry. .... Decent, clever men who for 20 years have felt respect for women are suddenly suspecting that it might have been misplaced." - Minette Marrin, "Why men won't take feminism", Sunday Telegraph, 20oct91.
".... an extremist moral and spiritual crusade .... For women of my generation, feminism has become as confining as what it pretends to combat. Today's feminists are remarkably similar to Victorians ...." - Denfeld, back of dust jacket, The New Victorians pub. Simon & Schuster 1995. Also see p88/89; "Today's feminists are using the word rape - and the fear it provokes - to promote their agenda of victim mythology.... it doesn't help rape victims. In fact, it does them great harm. ..... under the guise of fighting rape ...."
Ivor Catt. 2sep99
St. Albans AL3 4JR,
+44 1727 864257
Sex Offence Review Team,
Room 253 Home Office,
50 Queen Anne's Gate, 0171 2733000
A review of Sex Offences
I shall attend your Leicester conference on 10sep 99.
Here, I review only your pamphlet A review of Sex Offences, although I have other of your literature to hand. (A4 folded into three vertical sections Dd 60442 CCN077828 ....). Please in future give a distinguishing name and title to each of your documents.
I have assembled a wide ranging network of experts who altogether cover the broader field in which Sex Offences is nested. They all report that the subject is heavily politicised, with pandemic suppression of the better researched statistics, and censorship of research based on larger (10,000) cohorts while results from small (100) cohorts are widely published in the Press and quoted in Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Dept. publications.
Those that I respect all say that as a result, the situation is bound to deteriorate during the next 15 years. A marker of that deterioration will be the increasing suicide rate among young men. However, the politically compelling factor in around the year 2020 will be the breakdown of law and order in the streets.
Returning to your pamphlet.
Please tell me the way to Killarney?
- I wouldn't start from here.
The review is blighted even in this preliminary document.
Your brochure; "We know far more about patterns of sexual abuse than we did - the law needs to be able to reflect today's knowledge....." This is untrue. Research figures from numerous sources in 1899 would correlate far more closely than those referring to 1999. (Adrienne Burgess, funded by the Home office; says 3% of children are totally cut off from their fathers [private email to me, now on my website.]. cf Home Office report circa jan 99; says 20% are cut off.) The discrepancy in sex offence statistics is greater, because even more politicised. Although Prof. Stanko (Brunel Univ.) knows the truth, and admits it in her articles in learned journals, the material that she supplies to Govt. at the cost of Govt is totally different. e.g. "Taking Stock", 1998, ESRC. Govt is acting and legislating on the basis of advocacy delivered to and paid for by govt from Stanko, but also by numerous other lobby sources masquerading as research organisations and funded by govt. An example is the Home Office reported one in 4 wives battered by husband in their lifetime. Its origin is extremely murky and dirty. Even Stanko, to whom it is attributed, now disowns it.
Before any legal changes can be made, you must attempt to assemble researched information which is at least as accurate and consistent as the information on the subject that was available to the 1899 legislator, when it was not heavily politicised.
Your brochure; "In carrying out a review of this kind it is vital that the views of .... those with relevant expertise, are sought and considered. .... fair way." Touché.
"The government should not rush into quick-fix policy solutions in an attempt to address the problems, ..." - Angela Phillips, radical feminist keynote speech in Home Office conference, Boys, Young Men and Fathers 16nov98 (men's organisations excluded). I can deliver the scholarly researchers if you request them, but the fact that 15 years ago Erin Pizzey (whom I have visited) had to have police protection and finally left the country, and is even now living at a secret address, means that the problem of intimidation of such has to be dealt with by you in some way if you want access to unpolluted statistics and understanding rather than merely advocacy from such as Stanko, who are swarming around you.
I will be happy to deliver more analysis if you ask me for it. I have been deeply immersed in this subject for ten years, since a perjured affidavit accused me of sexual abuse of my daughter (whom I have since never seen). My book The Hook and the Sting, on my website, discusses that I established the fact that there is no procedure for going after perjury in our secret family courts. (Aitken was a show trial.) Two other perjured affidavits were sworn against me by other parties, making further criminal charges against me.
Perjured charges of sexual abuse, recommended by lawyers to wives to enable the removal of fathers from their homes, have leaked into home office statistics for sexual abuse. This is the kind of nonsense that threatens to blight new legislation.
Best wishes, Ivor Catt.