Open Letter to Allan Leighton: Chairman of the Royal Mail.
This letter was sent to you, Mr Leighton as an email attachment in
November 2006 from my home address in Lancaster.
The relevant Acts being The Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Data Protection Act 1998 (at least.)
Dear Allan Leighton,
Mail addressed to me at my address began to be intercepted in 2003 on a regular basis. The first clear evidence of mail interception, i.e. mail being opened and read in Lancaster Sorting Office by JOHN BUTLERmanager there was via a tax letter.
The tax office confirmed what I felt was clear from the evidence offered. That private and personal information had ben intercepted and passed via JOHN BUTLER to Lancashire County Council (LCC) employees in County Hall, Preston including an IAN FISHER.
Between then and mid 2004 I could only continually write and say that I had reason to believe I was deprived of much mail but apparently it was acceptable that 99% of my mail went 'missing'.
Recorded delivery letters simply disappeared without trace and I was told that I had 'misunderstood the recorded delivery service' which apparently is nothign more than an ordinary first class service which begs certain questions as to conning the general public.
At the end of 2003 astonishingly the letters disappearing without trace were seen to have been filed with the intended recipients after all. They had been accepted into such as Manchester Tribunals without being signed for. The object of that action was to allow Manchester tribunal staff to continually state that I had not sent documents when I had. That was also said, by the Royal Mail in my complaint of that time, to be normal practice.
In 2004 there were numerous examples of such 'normal practice' and numerous examples of my emails and letters reporting such as I considered it to be abnormal practice. I received no compensation at all any 'disappearing' recorded delivery letters, files or packages sent via such and wondered why customers were given receipts of 'sending to be signed for'.
In autumn 2004 I forwarded files to the Un in America and the ECHR in Strasbourg on many separate occasions. Despite the expensive tracked services I paid for every single file and package was deemed to 'be missing'. They were always 'missing somewhere in America' or somewhere out of England so that no blame could be apportioned to the criminals in the Royal Mail here.
By early winter 2004 I had cogent evidence of who was stealing my mail and generally intercepting it. It was LCC via J Butler. The vested interest was in court proceedings against those persons.
The evidence was so clear by late 2004 and the criminals were so confident in the conspiracy of freemason associates of LCC and the Royal Mail and Postwatch began to investigate.
It became a protracted affair; parcels left for me in the sorting office in Lancaster disappeared for days from that office only to reappear at will. My evidence was being discussed with Postwatch throughout.
In Nov 2004 a recorded delivery letter sent by me to the Royal Courts of Justice 'disappeared'. I sent another by recorded delivery and followed it on the train. That too 'disappeared' (or so I was told after my first few days in London) but was actually on the court file when I went to see the file some days later. (I knew I had a legal right to see the file.) Again recorded delivery letters were being given over without being signed for so that there could be a pretence that they had not been received.
How many people wil have been cheated out of justice because of court corruption with Royal Mail collusion?
Date lined documents so necessary for so much in courts will be said not to have been received thus offering detriments to an untold number of litigants.
(STUART BUNT of the RCJ arrogantly wrote to me saying that he had kept some of my letters especially those to Lord Woolf and that Lord Woolf would not see them. MICHAEL ARBUCKLE in the Employment Appeals tribunal {EAT} has also maliciously deprived President Patrick Elias of my faxes and recorded delivery letters, again to pervert the course of justice. I leave it to you to find the common denominator but a lcue is that LCC is always involved.)
In June 2005 Postwatch via RICHARD BROWN (ref no 288676) experienced a personality change. He became demanding of originals and various matters made me suspicious as to his change in attitude.
On5th July 2005 I discovered that LCC had been reading and intercepting my emails and had been doing so since 2002 at least. (I worked for LCC until early 2004.) Richard Brown's attitude was explained.
LCC had approached him and paid him to extract original documents of evidence from me and then he would have dismissed my claims. I would have had no evidence left.
Because of his obvious personality change I declined to send orignals sendign photcopies instead. One piece of evidence clearly showed who had sent me the first anonymous letter of threat designed to intimidate me as a witness in the overall matters then before the courts.
Gregor McGregor, Chairman of Postwatch ignored what I reported to him.
I began writing to you as Chairman of the Royal Mail having no success with the customer services dept. at all. Despite the willingness of some employees to advance my complaints their managers always ensured that my complaints were blocked.
A ROSA THORPE began a correspondence with me leading me to believe she was the Chairman of the Royal Mail, when she was not. I had found it difficult to accept that she was Chairman because her letters were banal and patronising and unprofessional in their insults to a member of the public with serious concerns about mail.
On 6 June 06 I was able to again list letters as posted to different addresses including the EAT and the letters as posted to me and the senders’ areas of posting which never arrived. (I had compiled other such lists previously which had all been ignored.)
Apparently I made all that up. All the certificates of posting, all the recorded delivery receipts and other agencies writing to me did not exist.
Throughout 2004 and until early 2005 neighbours and myself were recording the fact that I, the only person in the country, was having 2 mail deliveries a day. The ‘postmen’ were being filmed by CCTV.
When I made the CCTV apparatus known the 2 deliveries continued, but by now the teatime delivery was brought by older men in large, expensive vehicles. And they had taken to wearing post office vests (for the benefit of the CCTV.)
Somebody had supplied modern GPO part uniforms to those not employed by the Royal Mail. Again LCC was involved.
Rosa Thorpe explained that as them being ‘trainee postmen’ and only entitled to wear part of a uniform. (The ‘men’ were all well over 40 and their vehicles suggested that they did not need to be retrained for such a job at their time of life.) It was at that point when I realised that the Chairman of the Royal Mail could not be so stupid or think that I, or anybody else, was so unintelligent that I would believe that silly explanation.
By that time I had also noticed a genuinely new postman, Ryan, who was being paid by LCC to sit on a neighbour’s wall and photograph me via a mobile phone to monitor my movements and pass the information back to LCC. What postman would have time to simply sit in the sun on a wall for indefinite periods of time when he should be doing his round? It was all witnessed.
I had also discovered that a near neighbour with a plot of land (a Freemason) was allowing surveillance of me from vehicles parked there which included Ryan with his 4-wheel drive.
The ‘discretion’ was necessary because I had made the CCTV camera filming persons on my driveway and at my front door known to LCC.
They needed to stay out of range of the filming.
(Incidentally, to all readers, I will add that the large lens showing red at night on the 10’ frame for the camera was shot out but fortunately the filming continued without that red light. Who would do such a thing?)
Rosa Thorpe, when challenged needed the assistance of a male colleague and he, a TOBY THOMAS, wrote to me thinking, “This is a man’s job”.
Ms Thorpe, in 2006 had told me as I had been told in 2003 that the recorded delivery service had been ‘misunderstood’ by me and it was only a first class service at 3 times the cost of a first class stamp.
I informed her I would place her letter on the Internet so that persons would save monies and not bother with the recorded delivery service. A first class stamp would do the same job.
Ms Thorpe was upset and felt that as a public servant there should be no accountability for her.
Mr Thomas was protective towards Ms Thorpe and both attempted to extract the CCTV film footage from me (to pass to LCC who were desperately trying to obtain that evidence which included serious harassment of me at my home, hourly and daily for over 2 years at that time by thugs of the state (aka as off-duty police) and uncertified ‘bailiffs’ and the like.
Apparently witness statements and stills were not acceptable, presumably neighbours and ordinary members of the public were likely to say anything at all to make my claim sound good.
On 7 July 06 I was able to identify a package that had been opened after being sent by me and the contents of the enclosed letter had been used as a detriment to me. Naturally the only way the information obtained from my private letter in a package to another private individual could have been obtained was by intercepting and opening the package prior to delivery. That action had clearly been undertaken.
I wrote to John Butler about various evidences of that time and remained ignored as usual.
I could also show that some days I received bundles of letters that had obviously been stored and delivered days, weeks or even months later than the frankmark showed. When I pointed that out the Royal Mail acted. They simply failed to frankmark my letters so it seemed as if late delivered letters had simply been ignored by me.
Naturally I was put out of time for court actions in that.
On 18 July 06 I asked if John Butler was to be disciplined for the crimes committed against me under the Acts as above.
The answer ‘No’ came disguised as more prevarications and equivocations.
Now I was being asked by Toby Thomas to send him my original recorded delivery receipts to help him trace ‘missing’ letters etc.
The assumption that I was a permutation of gullibility, naivety and unintelligence was held.
(One judges another by one’s own standards I believe. I was none of those.)
The classic lines are used, “I am sorry I am not able to offer you a more favourable response and I apologise for any inconvenience and upset caused” rather in the manner of apology from British Rail when trains are delayed for hours or just cancelled altogether.
The distress referred to included something else that Ms Thomas had been unable to explain. A put through my door by Ryan was intensely private and from my GP.
It had been opened and read and I will suggest photocopied by LCC. Ryan, DOMINIC GLEESON in Lancaster Sorting Office could not explain how that letter was eventually safely delivered to me especially as the letter had been replaced in the window envelope back to front. My name and address did not show at all in the window of the envelope, nothing did. Does the Royal Mail employ parties with X Ray vision?
The ‘full investigations’ promised involved nothing more than phone calls between the Royal Mail and Lancaster Sorting Office, “How do we get out of this?”
They “get out of this” by trivialising, ignoring and plain dishonesty.
As a footnote the DOMINIC GLEESON referred to was dismayed when I showed him clear evidence of the crimes being committed against me. However, the Royal Mail soon made him see reason. He was another willing recruit in the corruption.
On 10 Aug 06 I wrote to Mr Thomas and asked him to point out to you as Chairman that you have vicarious liability in law for employees committing criminal acts. It matters not that they remain employed after the events. The vicarious liability rests on the time they were employed. (Please ask if you need case law.)
Naturally my files are complete. I would hope that those held by the Royal mail are also complete and match mine.
Please respond. This is public interest.
Yours sincerely
Carol Woods
On 6 June 06 I was able to again list letters as posted to different addresses including the EAT and the letters as posted to me and the senders’ areas of posting which never arrived. (I had compiled other such lists previously which had all been ignored.)
Apparently I made all that up. All the certificates of posting, all the recorded delivery receipts and other agencies writing to me did not exist.
Throughout 2004 and until early 2005 neighbours and myself were recording the fact that I, the only person in the country, was having 2 mail deliveries a day. The ‘postmen’ were being filmed by CCTV.
When I made the CCTV apparatus known the 2 deliveries continued, but by now the teatime delivery was brought by older men in large, expensive vehicles. And they had taken to wearing post office vests (for the benefit of the CCTV.)
Somebody had supplied modern GPO part uniforms to those not employed by the Royal Mail. Again LCC was involved.
Rosa Thorpe explained that as them being ‘trainee postmen’ and only entitled to wear part of a uniform. (The ‘men’ were all well over 40 and their vehicles suggested that they did not need to be retrained for such a job at their time of life.) It was at that point when I realised that the Chairman of the Royal Mail could not be so stupid or think that I, or anybody else, was so unintelligent that I would believe that silly explanation.
By that time I had also noticed a genuinely new postman, Ryan, who was being paid by LCC to sit on a neighbour’s wall and photograph me via a mobile phone to monitor my movements and pass the information back to LCC. What postman would have time to simply sit in the sun on a wall for indefinite periods of time when he should be doing his round? It was all witnessed.
I had also discovered that a near neighbour with a plot of land (a Freemason) was allowing surveillance of me from vehicles parked there which included Ryan with his 4-wheel drive.
The ‘discretion’ was necessary because I had made the CCTV camera filming persons on my driveway and at my front door known to LCC.
They needed to stay out of range of the filming.
(Incidentally, to all readers, I will add that the large lens showing red at night on the 10’ frame for the camera was shot out but fortunately the filming continued without that red light. Who would do such a thing?)
Rosa Thorpe, when challenged needed the assistance of a male colleague and he, a TOBY THOMAS, wrote to me thinking, “This is a man’s job”.
Ms Thorpe, in 2006 had told me as I had been told in 2003 that the recorded delivery service had been ‘misunderstood’ by me and it was only a first class service at 3 times the cost of a first class stamp.
I informed her I would place her letter on the Internet so that persons would save monies and not bother with the recorded delivery service. A first class stamp would do the same job.
Ms Thorpe was upset and felt that as a public servant there should be no accountability for her.
Mr Thomas was protective towards Ms Thorpe and both attempted to extract the CCTV film footage from me (to pass to LCC who were desperately trying to obtain that evidence which included serious harassment of me at my home, hourly and daily for over 2 years at that time by thugs of the state (aka as off-duty police) and uncertified ‘bailiffs’ and the like.
Apparently witness statements and stills were not acceptable, presumably neighbours and ordinary members of the public were likely to say anything at all to make my claim sound good.
On 7 July 06 I was able to identify a package that had been opened after being sent by me and the contents of the enclosed letter had been used as a detriment to me. Naturally the only way the information obtained from my private letter in a package to another private individual could have been obtained was by intercepting and opening the package prior to delivery. That action had clearly been undertaken.
I wrote to John Butler about various evidences of that time and remained ignored as usual.
I could also show that some days I received bundles of letters that had obviously been stored and delivered days, weeks or even months later than the frankmark showed. When I pointed that out the Royal Mail acted. They simply failed to frankmark my letters so it seemed as if late delivered letters had simply been ignored by me.
Naturally I was put out of time for court actions in that.
On 18 July 06 I asked if John Butler was to be disciplined for the crimes committed against me under the Acts as above.
The answer ‘No’ came disguised as more prevarications and equivocations.
Now I was being asked by Toby Thomas to send him my original recorded delivery receipts to help him trace ‘missing’ letters etc.
The assumption that I was a permutation of gullibility, naivety and unintelligence was held.
(One judges another by one’s own standards I believe. I was none of those.)
The classic lines are used, “I am sorry I am not able to offer you a more favourable response and I apologise for any inconvenience and upset caused” rather in the manner of apology from British Rail when trains are delayed for hours or just cancelled altogether.
The distress referred to included something else that Ms Thomas had been unable to explain. A put through my door by Ryan was intensely private and from my GP.
It had been opened and read and I will suggest photocopied by LCC. Ryan, DOMINIC GLEESON in Lancaster Sorting Office could not explain how that letter was eventually safely delivered to me especially as the letter had been replaced in the window envelope back to front. My name and address did not show at all in the window of the envelope, nothing did. Does the Royal Mail employ parties with X Ray vision?
The ‘full investigations’ promised involved nothing more than phone calls between the Royal Mail and Lancaster Sorting Office, “How do we get out of this?”
They “get out of this” by trivialising, ignoring and plain dishonesty.
As a footnote the DOMINIC GLEESON referred to was dismayed when I showed him clear evidence of the crimes being committed against me. However, the Royal Mail soon made him see reason. He was another willing recruit in the corruption.
On 10 Aug 06 I wrote to Mr Thomas and asked him to point out to you as Chairman that you have vicarious liability in law for employees committing criminal acts. It matters not that they remain employed after the events. The vicarious liability rests on the time they were employed. (Please ask if you need case law.)
Naturally my files are complete. I would hope that those held by the Royal mail are also complete and match mine.
Please respond. This is public interest.
Yours sincerely
Carol Woods
I never heard from Mr Allan Leighton
Carol Woods Lancaster 12 June 07
