Thursday, 2 July 2009

"Forty Years On" ** (1969-2009)

Various points have arisen in the previous blogs since 18 June which we would like to put right straight away. Our first post ‘The “Romeo Spy” blog has started’ - this title was given to John by the MI6 hirelings who were planning a publishing coup involving the Times newspaper, Penguin Books and the BBC. Someone thought that creating the Romeo Spy character titled “Scot of Scotland Yard” would be an eye catcher! To arrive at this title they took certain liberties, for example a deliberate mis-transliteration of John's codename CKOT, which in Russian translates as swine, beast, or a man who lives in the forest. John was aware of this name and enjoyed it, as his real work involved adopting the role of enforcer. A codename such as “rose petal”, “tulip”, or similar would have been a hindrance to John in carrying out his duties as an enforcer. To be known as “The beast” was an asset to John. By calling him “Scot” of Scotland Yard it created an interest in the possible future disclosure of agents “Land” and “Yard” (who have yet to appear).

** The Harrow School Song

On 23 June we put up an example of Nigel West’s writing. This is an excerpt of his latest book the Historical Dictionary of Sexspionage. We put this in so that everyone can see that Nigel West is a professional writer and his writing is of a high standard, as can be expected from the number of successful books he has previously published.

On the 24 June we put up the “Raleigh Spy Conference highlights John Symonds case”, which is by an anonymous author. Anyone who has read our previous blog of 23 June, which is a true example of Nigel West’s writing, will immediately see that the Raleigh Spy Conference article was certainly not written by Nigel West but by some anonymous person who was apparently present when Nigel West spoke to the conference and either recorded or made notes about his references to John. We were not at all happy about this publication and we have no intention of criticising it at length or in detail as it would use up many pages, but basically the whole article is incorrect. Knowing West, we don’t believe that he would ever say such things about John as were recorded in this article. For example, West knows how to spell John's name, he does not misspell it as Simons or call him Paul, and he has no need to make up fictitious events within John's life story - it is in fact a completely false account. West is a careful and correct author and would never make such mistakes within his writing. When this article came to our notice it spurred us into starting this blog and to set out to gain Nigel's true words in connection with this conference. So the anonymous writer who created this article is entirely responsible for all that will follow.

Our most recent blog of 26 June is about John's trial, occasionally referred to in the previous blogs, and we mentioned the attitude and tactics employed by the judge R A R Stroyan and Geoffrey Rivlin (the Chief Prosecutor). We have arranged for the official transcript of the Judge’s Summing Up to be published on this website, and anyone who takes time to read this will be of the opinion that John had a fair trial, and that the summing up was fair and balanced.

This is obviously the document that the Appeal Court judges saw when they requested a copy of this Summing Up on receiving John's appeal, which was mainly on the grounds that he had had an unfair trial and that the Summing Up was outrageously unfair. Therefore, the appeal court judges refused John the right to appeal against his conviction. John had made his own notes of what the judge had said, and his attitude, and John included these notes with his complaint to the Home Office department (responsible for complaints against appeal decisions) about having his appeal rejected on false grounds. John then obtained a copy of the summing up that the appeal court had received and he saw that all the matters about which he had complained – words spoken by the judge to the jury in his presence - had been removed from the official transcript of the summing up. If John had been an ordinary defendant, as per the thousands of other defendants going through the courts, that would be the end of it, as the official transcript produced by the court shorthand reporters was considered sacrosanct. But as an ex-Scotland Yard Detective Sergeant John was present at a number of boozy doo's in “The Tank” (a bar within Scotland Yard), where people were smirking and giggling about some poor soul, including some famous Capital cases, who had been distraught when their appeals had been rejected. It was no secret to them, and a number of then famous Detective Superintendants on the Murder Squad that the judge’s summing up could be got at, and “corrected”. One case John particularly remembered was the James Hanratty case, and he was reliably informed that our prisons are full of unfortunate people who are convinced that this practice is still ongoing. If anybody knows of a case where people are serving stupendous sentences and had their appeal refused and their parole refused for daring to criticise the appeal courts for relying on a false official document (Summing Up), please send in a comment to this effect. We have included a picture of judge Stroyan, who is now apparently enjoying his retirement, because in our next blog we will prove that he together with the prosecutor (the now judge Geoffrey Rivlin) between them deliberately doctored the official transcript of the summing up, and through the use of numerous additions and deletions created the bland “fair and just” summing up which resulted in John's appeal being rejected immediately and out of hand.

Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC

No comments:

Post a Comment