Establishing Their Roles.....

[[...]]

A Mr P. John is asking for FOI with regards The Leveson...  Of Course he doesn't get what he wants, but here is an extract of the reason why...

We are unable to provide you some of the information you have requested
because it is covered by the exemption at section 36 of the FOIA.

Section 36 (2) Information to which this section applies is exempt
information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person,
disclosure of the information under the Act

(i)         The free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii)        The free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation


This applies to the notes field on the FOI schedules that were submitted
to the Lord Chancellors Advisory Council.

Here is what the FOI says: Which covers the whole of Section 36 (2)

(2)Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act—
(a)would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

(i)the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, or

(ii)the work of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or

[F2(iii)the work of the Cabinet of the Welsh Assembly Government.]
(b)would, or would be likely to, inhibit—

(i)the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii)the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or

(c)would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.

Annotations:

S. 36(2)(a)(iii) substituted by The Government of Wales Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1388), art. 3, Sch. 1 para. 82(3) (the amendment coming into force immediately after the end of "the initial period" (which ended with the day of the first appointment of a First Minister on 25.5.2007) in accordance with art. 1(2)(3) of the amending S.I. and see ss. 46, 161(5) of Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32))

What has Operation Braid got to do with  exemption at section 36 of the FOIA. The Welsh Assembley?

[F2(iii)the work of the Cabinet of the Welsh Assembly Government.]
(b)would, or would be likely to, inhibit—

(i)the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii)the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/36

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leveson_inquiry_documents_closed

[Leonora]

A Mr P. John is asking for FOI with regards The Leveson...  Of Course he doesn't get what he wants, but here is an extract of the reason why...

Here is what the FOI says: Which covers the whole of Section 36 (2)

Annotations:

What has Operation Braid got to do with  exemption at section 36 of the FOIA. The Welsh Assembley?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/36

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leveson_inquiry_documents_closed

Your discovery that TWO exhibits submitted by Amanda Hirst as evidence in connection with Operation Braid to the Leveson Inquiry have been lodged with the National Archive, to be kept CLOSED for 84 years, is SENSATIONAL.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/88b19b139c56434a861cca48101f7073

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/1884d4152b70498b88d862f19aad10c8

This is the strongest proof yet that behind this "simple" murder case, which the public has been assured was motivated solely by the sexual depravity of an engineer of previously irreproachible character, is concealed a web of intrigue touching the security of the nation.

I myself was once a registered user of the National Archive. I went there in search of material on one of my more sensational ancestors. The staff were amazingly friendly ands helpful, and my search was not entirely in vain. However, I was outraged to be asked to state my race. In the light of your revelation, I can now understand that the staff would have treated me with suspicion if I hadn't put down "Anglo-Saxon".

That the Leveson inquiry heard secret evidence in closed session is a revelation in itself. The public suspected it was a whitewash, but this is evidence indeed. Did Christopher Jefferies also submit secret evidence?

[[...]]

There are plenty of witness statements that have been sealed... I am looking to see if CJ's had been sealed... In the mean time I came across some rather odds things.... (going slightly off topic)

Why is anything to do withe "The Suffolk Strangler" sealed ??

One particular interesting Item that was sealed was about a "Shoe"...

Reference:   LEV 2/4JW/Z
Description:   Exhibit_Tania Nicol _shoe_Suffolk Police
Held by:   The National Archives
Legal status:   Public Record
Closure status:   Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Access conditions:   Closed For 84 years
Record opening date:   02 November 2097

It peaked my interest for two reasons....

(1): Why would anything to do with the Suffolk Strangler be sealed for 84 Years when they again have the culprit in prison???

(2) The Shoe.... This reminded me of The Journalists reporting on The Joanna Yeates Case and asking if Joanna Yeates had lost a "Shoe"...

Now if it hadn't been for that I wouldn't be questioning it... But The Leveson concentrated on Phone Hacking... So what had the media uncovered???

Because I do not believe they are dropping hints about a shoe for no good reason.... (imo)...

There are plenty more on "The Suffolk strangler" that have been sealed... But I want to stay on topic...  I just found it rather odd!



http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/75439595e1224a3b9039219e54c0245f

[[...]]

Phil Jones

Reference:   LEV 2/CBTV/Z
Description:   W/S of Phillip Jones 29.2.12-Avon & Somerset Police
Held by:   The National Archives
Legal status:   Public Record
Closure status:   Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Access conditions:   Closed For 84 years
Record opening date:   02 November 2097

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/0b9a34c9621a424394c7762c2fc4b395

Reference:   LEV 2/CBX6/Z
Description:   W/S of Phillip Jones (Police Headquesters, Bristol) Avon & Somerset Constabulary_signed 28.2.12
Held by:   The National Archives
Legal status:   Public Record
Closure status:   Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Access conditions:   Closed For 84 years
Record opening date:   02 November 2097

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8a51d3057b6541f492d18ebf3296b0de

Reference:   LEV 2/TQ7/Z
Description:   Exhibit to W/S of Phillip Jones, Avon and Somerset Constabulary: Operation Braid- Media Strategy
Held by:   The National Archives
Legal status:   Public Record
Closure status:   Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Access conditions:   Closed For 84 years
Record opening date:   02 November 2097

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/0a55f9fe2c3747f28417f026dba1a5fa

[[...]]

Your discovery that TWO exhibits submitted by Amanda Hirst as evidence in connection with Operation Braid to the Leveson Inquiry have been lodged with the National Archive, to be kept CLOSED for 84 years, is SENSATIONAL.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/88b19b139c56434a861cca48101f7073

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/1884d4152b70498b88d862f19aad10c8

This is the strongest proof yet that behind this "simple" murder case, which the public has been assured was motivated solely by the sexual depravity of an engineer of previously irreproachible character, is concealed a web of intrigue touching the security of the nation.

I myself was once a registered user of the National Archive. I went there in search of material on one of my more sensational ancestors. The staff were amazingly friendly ands helpful, and my search was not entirely in vain. However, I was outraged to be asked to state my race. In the light of your revelation, I can now understand that the staff would have treated me with suspicion if I hadn't put down "Anglo-Saxon".

That the Leveson inquiry heard secret evidence in closed session is a revelation in itself. The public suspected it was a whitewash, but this is evidence indeed. Did Christopher Jefferies also submit secret evidence?

Yes Leonora...

Reference:   LEV 2/CCLF/Z
Description:   Exhibit CJ2 to w/s of Christopher Jeffries
Held by:   The National Archives
Legal status:   Public Record
Closure status:   Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Access conditions:   Closed For 84 years
Record opening date:   02 November 2097

CJ's witness statement has been sealed for 84 years.....

Now why would they need to do a thing like that if Dr Vincent Tabak had killed Joanna Yeates ????  Who did CJ.. See at the gate or in and around Canygne Road??? What did CJ know... ??? Now  we come to understand why they had Dr Vincent Tabak tell a tall story about how Joanna Yeates died.... It was complete and utter trash!!!!

Something extremely dodgy is going on....

And if anyone still believes that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates then they are off their heads..... (imo)

What is being covered up leonora????

CJ's second witness statement is Gold!! Now I understand why you get so het up about it... There is NO need to hide anyones witness statement in relation to this case....

They never wanted CJ at That Trial They obviously couldn't afford to have him there.... Who is being protected??

The Yeates family obviously still haven't received Justice have they.... !!

Isn't it about time "The Media" grew some balls and said something??? They obviously know what is going on!!!!

Or do they not dare??  What happened to Freedom of the press???

Lord have mercy..... I think the media should have an expose..... I believe that they should do a campaign daily from the date Joanna Yeates went "Missing"...

I believe it is time for them to start writing... They can start on the 17th December 2017, right through to 28th October 2018 and give us every detail they actually know....

And stop hiding the truth from everybody...(Please...)


http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/28b474f733f0437e895ea7b0ed4a496d

[AerialHunter]

I am stunned. The Suffolk Strangler Case was part of our inquiry since we began, and you’ve dug this up. What are they trying to hide indeed.

AH

[[...]]

I am stunned. The Suffolk Strangler Case was part of our inquiry since we began, and you’ve dug this up. What are they trying to hide indeed.

AH

There are many documents in relation to "The Suffolk Strangler Case" that have been sealed AH... not just the one I showed you... But many many more!!!

[AerialHunter]

Perhaps CJ isn’t the ball busting, police bashing superhero he’s been painted as. If he did see something the powers that be didn’t want made public, did they engineer the whole charade of his attendance at a government inquiry and pay for the cost of producing a celebrated and award winning piece of crappy TV just to buy his silence, oh and an undeclared for tax purposes unspecified bung and a bottle of hair dye.

AH

[Leonora]

...

(1): Why would anything to do with the Suffolk Strangler be sealed for 84 Years when they again have the culprit in prison???

According to Noel O'Gara the man in prison is not the culprit at all, and this is yet another cruel conviction of an innocent man who was set up by the actual killer:

http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/

This revelation cannot be considered off-topic so long as we have evidence that evidence in both these case has been buried. In the Suffolk case, there is no doubt that the scapegoat really is inside.

[[...]]

Perhaps CJ isn’t the ball busting, police bashing superhero he’s been painted as. If he did see something the powers that be didn’t want made public, did they engineer the whole charade of his attendance at a government inquiry and pay for the cost of producing a celebrated and award winning piece of crappy TV just to buy his silence, oh and an undeclared for tax purposes unspecified bung and a bottle of hair dye.

AH

Never saw CJ as a superhero.... There's more to do with CJ... and in all cases it is always about Leverage..

The dramatisation I couldn't see the purpose of to be honest... But if that was a way they paid CJ.. then maybe it stopped him suing The Police... which he never did....

I hoped CJ was a man of principles...  but he too has been paid for his silence.... (imo)

What happened to good old fashioned "Principles and Morals"???  It used to count for something when I grew up....!!!

[[...]]

According to Noel O'Gara the man in prison is not the culprit at all, and this is yet another cruel conviction of an innocent man who was set up by the actual killer:

http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/

This revelation cannot be considered off-topic so long as we have evidence that evidence in both these case has been buried.

I always wondered why the title of that webpage, was 'The Suffolk Strangler"... makes sense now ... !!!

[[...]]

CJ and The House of Lords....

CJ gets about.....

Lord Woolf: Yes. What do you think, Mr Jefferies?
Christopher Jefferies: Yes, I entirely agree. It seemed to me that Robert Jay’s function was twofold
in my experience. The first part was to highlight aspects of the evidence that I had given that he felt
particularly significant and then, secondly, to invite me to enlarge on any aspects that he thought
might be valuable or of public interest. Certainly, I was, for example, at his invitation able to
highlight the fact that a letter that I wrote to the Press Complaints Commission had until that time
gone unanswered.

Lord Richard: Good, thank you. Mr Jefferies?
Christopher Jefferies: Yes, I would entirely concur with that. As I said, I did appear on two
occasions so there were both written submissions and then oral evidence on both occasions. At
the end of each session, Robert Jay was extremely careful to ask whether there was anything that
he had not covered that I wanted to say more about.

Why would Robert Jay need to be extremely careful ??

Q172 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Were you able to choose your own? Was it allocated to you
or did you go to them?
Julie Bailey: No, we had an opportunity to choose and we were fortunate that we had used the
barrister, our lead barrister, for the non-statutory inquiry so we had had experience of him. It is a
tall task to expect the public to be able to choose who they think is going to be able to represent
them. It is only because we had had experience of the non-statutory inquiry.
Christopher Jefferies: If I could just go back briefly to the previous question and say that certainly
as far as my experience was concerned there was none of the pressure that you suggest. Indeed,
my experience was that the inquiry was conducted extremely efficiently and expeditiously and I
hope will be thought to have been extremely cost-effective.

Cost effective for whom???
Lives have been taken and no-one is owning up to this.... It has been swept under the carpet....

The Chairman: I do not know whether Mr Jefferies has anything to add, and then Lord Soley.

Christopher Jefferies: Yes, I think I would agree with a great deal of what has just been said. As far
as my experience of the inquiry and its outcome are concerned in terms of the report of Lord
Justice Leveson, I am very happy indeed. I agree with the point about the possible value of wider
consultation over the terms of reference of the inquiry. I think the only thing that I would add so
far as the outcome is concerned is that it has been rather unfortunate that we have had such a
tortuous procedure to get to where we have with the, I hope, imminent sealing of the cross-party
charter at the end of this month.

Q185 Lord Soley: It is a very difficult area, this, because the suggestion Ms Bailey is making is
that there ought to be a legal enforcement of the recommendations, but we heard from Sir Brian
Leveson that the last thing he wanted was to be involved in carrying forward any recommendation.
In a sense, I suspect it has to be a parliamentary thing and Parliament has to decide what is going to
be carried forward, whether it is on the health service or on Leveson. If you have a situation where
there is a legal requirement, then in all cases, including the Leveson one, they would just have to
act on it. Although some people might say that is a very good thing, other people most notably
would say it is not a good thing. I wonder if you would agree that maybe this is where Parliament
Julie Bailey and Christopher Jefferies – Oral evidence (QQ 152 – 189)
19
ought to be looking—indeed, as it perhaps has in Leveson—very, very carefully on how the
recommendations are put into effect or whether or not they are put into effect. Certainly, Sir Brian
Leveson did not want a follow-up approach as you would want with Mid Staffs, and I can see why. I
think there is a very real difference, but you can see where there is, if you like, a political dilemma.
Maybe it is a challenge to Parliament that we ought to find a way of dealing with that.
Christopher Jefferies: Yes, I think I would very much agree with the direction in which your
argument is taking you. Again, the only thing I would add is that it was rather unfortunate in that
having, in effect, set up both before and during the inquiry his own tests as to whether or not the
recommendations would be acceptable—namely, that the Leveson recommendations had to be
acceptable to victims as well as the press and politicians, and that they would be implemented
unless they were bonkers—there was a considerable stepping back from what everybody had taken
to be that commitment once the report of the inquiry was published.

Why is CJ there ???

Lord Richard: It proved so in the case of Leveson.
Christopher Jefferies: Could I just very briefly interject there?
Baroness Buscombe: Please do.
Christopher Jefferies: There is a very handily produced summary of the core recommendations of
the inquiry, which was published at the same time as the full report. That is certainly in terms of
length or density not an impediment to comprehension or being grasped by anybody who is
interested in the subject.

CJ.. likes to talk.... Maybe he can tell us what is in his second witness statement... and not the none-sense we have come to know !!!!!


http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/Inquiries-Act-2005/IA_Written_Oral_evidencevol.pdf

[[...]]

This is what is missing from CJ and maybe more..

15 pp18-19, lines 25-6, Christopher Jefferies, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/
Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-2011.pdf

[[...]]

4.    Christopher Jefferies
Introduction
4.1 Joanna Yeates was the tenant of Christopher Jefferies who owned a number of flats in the
Clifton area of Bristol. Mr Jefferies is a retired English teacher, having enjoyed a long and
distinguished career at Clifton College between 1967 and 2001. On 19 December 2010
Ms Yeates’ partner, who had been away for the weekend, reported her as missing to the
police. On Christmas Day her body was found at the edge of a quarry three miles away;
she had been strangled to death. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary opened a large-scale
murder investigation and press interest in the story was, understandably, massive

What day did Greg Reardon report Joanna Yeates Missing.... according to this it was the 19th December 2010????

Again in this report...

Similar strictures had previously been made in a somewhat different tone, but with equivalent
accuracy, by Ms Yeates’ partner, Greg Reardon, who issued a press statement on 1 January
2011 in these terms:71
‘Jo’s life was cut short tragically but the finger pointing and character assassination
by social and news media of as yet innocent men had been shameful. It has made
me lose a lot of faith in the morality of the British press and those who spend their
time fixed to the internet in this modern age ... I hope in the future they will show a

How odd!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270941/0780_ii.pdf

[mrswah]

This is what is missing from CJ and maybe more..

15 pp18-19, lines 25-6, Christopher Jefferies, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/
Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-2011.pdf

Can't get the link to work!!