Cllr Potter, who has turned a blind eye to the systematic abuse of Grandma B by her party colleagues, York Social Services and North Yorkshire Police, is standing as a candidate for Police Commissioner in North Yorkshire.
Grandma B has just posted this notice on her website:
-
May I ask Ruth Potter, who is intending to stand as Police Commissioner, what she intends to do about the RAMPANT CORRUPTION in North Yorkshire Police, North Yorkshire Police Authority and, of course, her own York Labour Party?
What does she have to say about the allegations of CORRUPTION in York Social Services and the Police made in Parliament by Lord Maginnis?
Please see:
26 June 2012 21:05
The comment is awaiting “moderation”. Will Cllr Potter post it and answer it or will she chose to exercise her right of silence? Don’t need three guesses, do we?
******
Well, we got an answer of sorts. Here are the e-mails:
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:54:05 +0200
From: Peter Hofschröer
To: ruthpotter@live.co.uk
CC: milibande@parliament.uk; rosie.winterton.mp@parliament.uk; BAYLEYH@parliament.uk; secretary@yorklabour.org.uk; watsont@parliament.uk; bernie_keavy@labour.org.uk; WELLSM@parliament.uk; BOWGETTD@parliament.uk; Paul_Nicholson@labour.org.uk;
Subject: CRIMES COMMITTED BY YORK COUNCIL & YORK LABOUR PARTY
Dear Ms Potter,
As expected, you did not have the courtesy to reply to my e-mail of 1st inst. (as attached). I take this to mean you admit that you are a corrupt councillor involved in the financial abuse of defenceless, vulnerable people in York. After all, your party colleagues and the City of York Council are not denying the allegations of this made in the press and in Parliament.
Below is a thread of e-mails to the North Yorkshire Police and North Yorkshire Police Authority outlining a small part of the evidence of their criminal activities, against which you are not prepared to act, presumably as you are a party to these crimes.
May I quote just one section of this evidence?
“As you know a barrister has reviewed the evidence I have collected and confirmed there is enough evidence to justify the arrest and prosecution of several police officers and members of the City of York Council. There have also been questions asked in parliament openly alleging corruption to which the force and the Police Authority does not deny and declined to comment on. Clearly you all have sufficient grounds for grave concern over this situation, a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, that there has been corruption within the force that you are responsible for and by officers of City of York Council.”
May I repeat my earlier questions to you?
“May I ask Ruth Potter, who is intending to stand as Police Commissioner, what she intends to do about the RAMPANT CORRUPTION in North Yorkshire Police, North Yorkshire Police Authority and, of course, her own York Labour Party?
What does she have to say about the allegations of CORRUPTION in York Social Services and the Police made in Parliament by Lord Maginnis?
Please see:
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/proper-delegation-please-not-abdication/”
Your lack of response clearly indicates you do not have a problem with senior police officers committing serious crime, so the only logical reason for you standing as Police & Crime Commissioner would be to facilitate that crime.
Do you wish to deny this?
If I do not hear from you by 5 p.m. CET on Tuesday, 3rd July 2012, I will take it as read this is the case and react accordingly.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Hofschröer
Carer for Barbara Hofschröer, aged 83, wheelchair-bound and victim of Labour Party Crime
*****
This was her reply:
——– Original Message ——–
| Subject: | RE: CRIMES COMMITTED BY YORK COUNCIL & YORK LABOUR PARTY |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:25:41 +0100 |
| From: | Ruth Potter <ruthpotter@live.co.uk> |
| To: | Peter Hofschröer |
Ruth Potter
*****
Well, for the record, it was the first time as well. It seems that cc’ing alist of journalists inspired her to reply for the first time in the four years she has know about this affair.
Note that Dear Ruth did not issue any denial of the accusations made against her, so let’s look at the right to silence issue in a little more detail.
“Qui tacet consentire videtur” runs the ancient maxim of common law – “Silence gives consent”; and from that maxim flows a widely-applied legal principle: ‘the rule of tacit admission’. On the theory that an innocent man (or woman) would strenuously deny a serious charge, the rule holds that a suspect who remains silent in the face of an accusation has tacitly admitted the crime. And such silence can later be introduced at trial as an indicator of guilt.
What is clearly not right is to remain silent while continuing to act in public office – particularly as a ward councillor with access to vulnerable people, to whose abuse she does not deny being party. Added to that is her ambition to become Police & Crime Commissioner, whose tasks include ensuring accountability and transparency, when she is refusing to account for her own actions, or lack of them, while in public office.
She is clearly not fit for purpose.
grandmabarbara 