This relates to

The Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party from 2015-2020 (“Mr Corbyn”)*

An unnamed Labour MP

Two unnamed important public officials

Mr E, who has criticised the unnamed Labour MP

The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP, Chief Whip of the Labour Party (“Mr Brown”) 

“Alistair”, of “Membership Services and Correspondence” in the Labour Party

The National Secular Society (NSS) and, in particular, its President, Mr Keith Porteous Wood^

Professor Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and author of many scientific books ("Professor Dawkins")^

Humanists UK and, in particular, its President, Professor Alice May Roberts BSc MB BCh PhD Hon FBAASc, Professor of the Public Engagement in Science at the University of BIrmingham ("Professor Roberts")^ 

The above-named are listed in the order in which they are mentioned below.

All information herein is based solely on papers produced by Mr E.

The number of “X” characters used to redact a name is not necessarily the number of characters in the name.

The original letters and e-mail referred to herein were, of course, not redacted in any way.

Mr E wrote to Mr Corbyn, at Labour Central, Kings Manor, Newcastle-on-Tyne NE1 6PA, as follows:

16 February 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

I have been in correspondence with Ms XXXXXX and summarise, as follows, the main facts:

• She has, or should have, documentary proof of a catalogue of misconduct committed between summer 2017 and summer 2018 by two important public officials. In an e-mail of 7 September 2018, I asked her whether she agreed that they should be dismissed but she did not answer the question.  She expressed unwillingness to press for the dismissal of either of them but gave no rational explanation.

• My last communication to her was an e-mail of 11 January 2019.

• I have not received any communication from her, or anyone acting on her behalf, since 14 September 2018.

• In an e-mail of 10 August 2018 to her, I stated the following, in relation to regulation of professions: “I ... suggest that the Labour Party develop detailed proposals for a new system, under which all professions would be regulated by one statutory body, in which minor complaints would be dealt with by civil servants and serious ones by juries.  It would have departments to deal with professions of different types (legal, medical, engineering etc.) and the official in overall charge and the heads of departments would be accountable to Parliament through an all-party committee of MPs.”  In my e-mail of 7 September 2018, I asked whether she agreed with that but she did not answer the question.

Her failures to take simple steps in the public interest and to state that she does, or does not, agree with me on an important issue raise basic questions.  In my opinion, she is unsuitable to be an MP.  Please, initially, ask her whether she disputes any fact stated in this letter and let me know her response, or the fact that she will not respond.

Yours sincerely

Mr E states that he received no reply.  (He has given us a Certificate of Posting, dated 16 February 2019, for an item addressed as above.) He wrote again, as follows:

14 May 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

Please note that I have still not received a reply to my letter of 16 February 2019, of which I attach a signed copy.

Yours sincerely

Mr E states that, again, he received no reply.  (He has given us a Certificate of Posting, dated 15 May 2019, for another item addressed as above.)  He wrote again, by Recorded Delivery, as follows:

15 June 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

I have still received no reply to my letter of 16 February 2019, despite my reminder of 14 May 2019.  I attach a further signed copy of the former and a signed copy of the latter.

Ms XXXXXX should have copies, stored electronically, of all relevant documents and be able to easily transmit copies to you but, with reference to the last sentence of my letter of 16 February 2019, you could send me a satisfactory initial reply based only on a brief discussion with her.

I suggest that you reply by Recorded Delivery. If, 21 days after delivery of this letter, I have still received no reply, I shall not subsequently entertain any claim to the effect that one was sent prior to the end of June 2019 by ordinary post.

I have arranged for an article, based on this letter and the attached copies, to be published online 21 days after delivery, or shortly thereafter, if I have still received no reply.

Yours sincerely

(Mr E had made arrangements with us, the operators, before he sent the letter.)

Mr E has given us a receipt, dated 15 June 2019, for an item sent by Recorded Delivery to the above address and the Post Office website shows that it was delivered on 17 June 2019.  He received a very quick reply as follows:

17 June 2019

Dear XXXXXX

Many thanks for your letter to the Party.  I can only apologise for the delay in getting back to you and that you didn't get a response to your original letter.

At this time I suggest that you contact the Party's Chief Whip, Nick Brown MP, as he deals with Party discipline and complaints against MPs.  You can contact Nick by writing to him at the House of Commons.  The address is:-

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

If you have any further requests or questions please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Best wishes

Alistair

Membership Services and Correspondence

Labour Party

Mr E wrote again, by Recorded Delivery, as follows:

FOR THE ATTENTION OF “ALISTAIR” OF MEMBERSHIP SERVICES AND CORRESPONDENCE

29 June 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

Thank you for the letter of 17 June 2019 sent on behalf of your Party.

I attach a signed copy of a letter of today's date to The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP (“Mr Brown”) but you could have acted as requested in the last sentence of my letter of 16 February 2019 without his involvement.

With reference to the last sentence of my letter of 15 June 2019, I have deferred publication of anything based on my letters to you but, should no representative of your Party, within 21 days of delivery of this letter (or, if later, delivery of my letter to Mr Brown) act as requested in the last sentence of my letter of 16 February 2019, an updated article will be published.

I suggest that you, or Mr Brown, reply by Recorded Delivery.  If, 30 days after delivery of this letter (or, if later, delivery of my letter to Mr Brown), I have still not received a proper response in relation to the last sentence of my letter of 16 February 2019, I shall deem no such response to have been sent.

Yours sincerely

Mr E also wrote to Mr Brown, by Recorded Delivery, as follows:

29 June 2019

Dear Mr Brown

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

I attach copies, all signed by me for identification, of the following, which are self-explanatory:

A letter of 16 February 2019 from me to the Leader of the Labour Party
A reminder, of 14 May 2019
A further reminder, of 15 June 2019
A reply, of 17 June 2019, from “Alistair”, on behalf of the Party
A letter, of today's date, from me to the Leader, marked for the attention of “Alistair”

Please, initially, do as I asked in the last sentence of my letter of 16 February 2019.

Yours sincerely

cc The Leader of the Labour Party, marked for the attention of “Alistair”

Mr E has given us a receipt, dated 29 June 2019, for an item sent by Recorded Delivery to Labour Central and another, also sent by Recorded Delivery, to the House of Commons.  The Post Office website shows that the former was delivered on 1 July 2019 but that the latter has still not been delivered!

Mr E wrote to Mr Brown again, by Recorded Delivery:

27 July 2019

Dear Mr Brown

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

On 29 June 2019, I sent you a letter with five attachments, by Recorded Delivery but, according to the Post Office website, it has still not been delivered.

Yours sincerely

Mr E has given us a receipt, dated 27 July 2019, for an item sent by Recorded Delivery to the House of Commons but, again, the Post Office website shows that it has still not been delivered!

He wrote again, by Recorded Delivery, to Mr Corbyn, as follows:

FOR THE ATTENTION OF “ALISTAIR” OF MEMBERSHIP SERVICES AND CORRESPONDENCE

06 August 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

I refer to my letter of 29 June 2019 and attachment.

According to the Post Office website, the item sent to Mr Brown on that date, by Recorded Delivery, has still not been delivered.  The Reference No. is XXXXXXXXXXXX.

Having seen that website on 27 July 2019, I sent Mr Brown a further letter, of which I attach a copy.  Attached to the letter, of course, were items as described therein.  I again used the Recorded Delivery service but, today, the Post Office website indicates that delivery of this second item addressed to Mr Brown has still not occurred.  The Reference No. is XXXXXXXXXXXX.

The letter, with an attachment, sent to you on 29 June 2019 was, as you should know, also sent by Recorded Delivery. Of course, it was delivered and the Post Office website confirms this.  It was sent from the same Post Office (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) as the item sent to Mr Brown on that date.

On 27 July 2019, I also sent an unrelated item by Recorded Delivery and the Post Office website shows that it was delivered the next day.  The item addressed to Mr Brown and the unrelated item were both sent from the Post Office referred to above.

Probably, someone in the postal service in London has repeatedly failed to do his / her duty but I am too busy to investigate the matter.  I leave it to you to do so, should you so wish.

My present concern is that I still await the simple piece of information requested at the end of my letter of 16 February 2019.  I leave it to you to contact Mr Brown should you so wish but, whether or not you do so, I want that information.  I am, of course, allowing your Party ample time to provide it. 
 

Yours sincerely

We have redacted the information which would enable readers to find out the address of the Post Office at which the items were posted, because Mr E does not wish us to identify the unnamed Labour MP's constituency.

Evidently having considered the situation further, Mr E sent Mr Brown an e-mail with an attached PDF and sent Mr Corbyn a further letter, by Recorded Delivery, with an attached copy of the e-mail.  They were as follows:

TEXT OF E-MAIL OF 19.08.19 TO MR BROWN

CRITICISMS OF MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP

Dear Mr Brown

I attach a PDF containing copies of the following:

• A letter of 29 June 2019, which I sent to you, with five attachments, by Recorded Delivery but which, according to the Post Office website, has still not been delivered

• Every item listed therein

• A further letter, of 27 July 2019, which I sent to you, with six attachments, also by Recorded Delivery but which, also, according to the Post Office website, has still not been delivered

• A letter of 6 August 2019, which I sent by Recorded Delivery to the Leader of the Labour Party, marked for the attention of “Alistair” and which the Post Office website shows was delivered on 8 August 2019.
  

This may be the first communication you have received in connection with my criticisms of Ms XXXXXX.  To allow you ample time to take the simple steps I asked your Leader, in the last sentence of my letter of 16 February 2019, to take, I have decided to extend, by 11 days (the number of days since 8 August 2019), the length of time I am allowing you to do so.  I hope to receive a suitable letter from you by 18 September 2019, unless I have received one from your Leader or someone acting on his behalf.

Yours sincerely

FOR THE ATTENTION OF “ALISTAIR” OF MEMBERSHIP SERVICES AND CORRESPONDENCE

19 August 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

Yours sincerely

Mr E has given us a receipt, dated 20 August 2019, for an item sent by Recorded Delivery to Labour Central and the Post Office website shows that it was delivered the next day.

He sent Mr Corbyn a further letter, by Recorded Delivery, as follows:

FOR THE ATTENTION OF “ALISTAIR” OF MEMBERSHIP SERVICES AND CORRESPONDENCE

23 September 2019

Dear Mr Corbyn

RE: MS XXXXXXXXXXX MP (“MS XXXXXX”)

Yours sincerely

Mr E has given us a receipt, dated 23 September 2019, for an item sent by Recorded Delivery to Labour Central and the Post Office website shows that it was delivered the next day.

He states, at the time of publication of this article, that he has still received nothing from Mr Brown and nothing further from “Alistair” or anyone else at Labour Central.

Readers may wonder why this article does not show Mr E's name, the name of the MP whom he has criticised, or the names of the public officials referred to in his letter of 16 February 2019 to Mr Corbyn.  Mr E has explained, as follows, why he has asked us not to publish this information:

“I leave it to other politicians and members of the public generally to press Mr Corbyn to name the MP, to name the public officials and give details of their misconduct and to explain the cause(s) of what has been, at best, the dire maladministration of his Party.  He (mainly through the MP) should have access, electronically or on paper, to copies of all relevant documents and is entitled to disclose any of this information to anyone (but not to disclose legitimately private information about me, or a businessman mentioned therein who has been declared bankrupt with debts of almost £1M).  My only reason for asking you not to publish my own name in this article is that it would enable some people to identify the MP's constituency but, to the public, it does not matter who I am.”

SHOULD MR CORBYN BELIEVE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS, IN ANY WAY, INACCURATE OR UNFAIR, IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO PUBLISH COMMENTS ON IT ON THE LABOUR PARTY WEBSITE.

ADDENDUM 2 DECEMBER 2019

The above is as published on 4 October 2019, except for minor improvements to the format.  The next day, our proprietor, Mr Appleby, sent Mr Corbyn a letter (marked “FOR THE ATTENTION OF “ALISTAIR” OF MEMBERSHIP SERVICES AND CORRESPONDENCE”) by Recorded Delivery, notifying him that the article had been published.  The Post Office website shows that it was delivered on 7 October 2019.  (The Tracking No. is NJ585258635GB.)

Mr Appleby has still received no response.  He comments as follows:

The Labour Party should not be trusted to act reasonably.  (I am not a member of any political party and am not implying that any other party is better.)  This is evident in relation to many issues. 

I refer, for example, to the first article on this website.  It would be a mistake to imagine that the behaviour of Lord Irvine and Mr Blair, referred to therein, occurred too long ago to matter.  A key question remains unanswered, namely “Why did Lord Irvine resist the campaign to have the law against “scandalising the Court” abolished?”  No reasonable person could have regarded it as a good law.  (His resistance may have been unrelated to Mr Scriven's allegations.)  The Party has still not publicly apologised for his, or Mr Blair's, behaviour.  Lord Irvine is still living in luxury at public expense but, more importantly, there may now be crooked judges who were protected from criticism for long periods prior to the abolition of that law in 2013.  Mr Scriven died in 2012, other relevant witnesses may have died and documentary evidence of judges' misconduct may have been lost or destroyed.  (There are still many prominent members of the Labour Party and other parties who could, prior to the involvement of Mr Hain in 2012, have publicly called for the abolition of the law against "scandalising the Court" but, for reasons best known to themselves, did not.)  Coincidentally, parts of the above material published on 4 October 2019 are related to this.  The Labour Party's deafening silence in relation to regulation of professions (especially in view of the suggestion, in the letter of 16 February 2019, that serious complaints should be dealt with by juries) supports a hypothesis that it has influential members who wish to protect one or more judges from legitimate scrutiny now.  (Incidentally, with reference to the previous article, entitled “The Legal System in Eire”, had Mr D been able to have a complaint against the retired judge dealt with by a jury, the consequences could have been far-reaching.)

Another example is that the last Labour Government (1997-2010) failed to introduce any Bill to control the distribution of plastics, despite obvious evidence that they were causing serious problems, on land, in watercourses and in the sea.  If the relevant Ministers were well-intentioned and free from improper influence, they must have been very incompetent.  (The law relating to plastics is still very inadequate.)

Yet another example is that, despite evidence in the public domain (especially on the website of Hillside Animal Sanctuary) that the RSPCA was being seriously mismanaged, the Labour Government failed to have its conduct publicly investigated.  (Further evidence of serious mismanagement of the RSPCA has become available.  In particular, I refer to an article headed “Charity Commission warns RSPCA over payout to former chief” in The Guardian on 22 August 2018.)

That Government was also responsible for many other serious failures relevant to animals.  For example, it failed to introduce good enough welfare legislation to protect farm animals or even take reasonable steps to enforce the existing legislation.  Hundreds of millions of animals probably suffered distress, mainly in factory farms, as a result but one aspect of the situation should be of particular interest to the public. Undercover reporters from Hillside Animal Sanctuary produced proof that animals in premises supposedly monitored by the RSPCA were neglected and kept in awful conditions, in breach of published RSPCA policies.  Products from those animals were, of course, sold with RSPCA “Freedom Food” labels.  (Similar scandalous behaviour has continued under the subsequent Governments.)

Good farmers consequently lost (and continue to lose) money.

It also failed to even attempt to have Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (known as the “Secrecy Clause”) abolished. (The website of Naturewatch Foundation contains a great deal of information on its campaign to have this abolished.)

No act or omission by that Government, in relation to animal welfare, has led to even one expulsion from the Labour Party. 

On 27 August 2019, the Labour Party published its "Animal Welfare Manifesto", which contains the following statements:  "This suite of policies on animal welfare seeks to build upon the long standing leadership of the Labour Party on the issue of animal welfare" and "... Labour has always placed the welfare of animals high on the policy agenda", which I classify as objectionable pieces of propaganda.  The last Labour Government's record on animal welfare was good in some ways but, overall, poor.  (No party which was represented in the recently dissolved Parliament has even a fairly good overall record on animal welfare.)

I have based my judgements on information from Naturewatch Foundation and Hillside Animal Sanctuary and my first - hand knowledge of politicians' behaviour.  (I am confident, from long experience, that all information from both organisations is reliable but I am not implying that I entirely agree with their policies.)

SHOULD MR CORBYN BELIEVE THAT THIS ADDENDUM IS, IN ANY WAY, INACCURATE OR UNFAIR, IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO PUBLISH COMMENTS ON IT ON THE LABOUR PARTY WEBSITE BUT I DO NOT INTEND TO WRITE TO HIM AGAIN TO INFORM HIM THAT IT HAS BEEN ADDED.

FOR MANY YEARS, THIS WEBSITE HAS CONTAINED MATERIAL RELEVANT TO POLITICIANS GENERALLY AND, IN PARTICULAR, MATERIAL WHICH WOULD PROMPT REASONABLE PEOPLE TO LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE LABOUR PARTY.  PROMINENT LABOUR POLITICIANS HAVE, OR SHOULD HAVE, BEEN LONG AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS WEBSITE BUT THE PARTY HAS NEVER PUBLISHED ANY COMMENT ON IT.  THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES.  

HOWEVER, EVEN IF MR CORBYN HAD NOT SEEN IT PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF MY LETTER OF 5 OCTOBER 2019, HE SHOULD, SHORTLY AFTERWARDS, HAVE READ THE “HOME” PAGE AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE STATEMENT “MORE WILL FOLLOW SOON.”

FURTHERMORE, HAD HE ACTED REASONABLY IN RELATION TO THE LETTERS OF 16 FEBRUARY AND 14 MAY 2019, NO CRITICISM OF HIS PARTY WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED RECENTLY AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUBLICLY COMMENT, MONTHS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION, ON ANYTHING ALREADY ON THIS WEBSITE.

SHOULD HE NOT READ THIS ADDENDUM IN TIME TO PUBLISH COMMENTS ON IT BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION, HE SHOULD BLAME HIMSELF, IF, OF COURSE, HE WOULD HAVE WISHED TO PUBLISH COMMENTS ON IT.

He doesn't believe it – or does he? Mr Brown has one foot in the National Secular Society (NSS).

Mr Appleby (having read the article on Wikipedia re: Mr Brown) sent a letter, as follows, to Mr K P Wood, President of the NSS.

12 December 2019

Dear Mr Wood

RE: MR NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN (“MR BROWN”)

Parts of the last article referred to on the “Home” page of my website, www.cronies.org.uk, relate to Mr Brown.

According to Wikipedia, he is an honorary associate of your organisation.  I suggest that, if he is, you question him in writing and consider whether he should be allowed to remain so.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

Having received no response, he sent a reminder thus, with a signed copy of the letter of 12 December 2019:

14 January 2020

Dear Mr Wood

RE: MR NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN (“MR BROWN”)

Please note that I have not received a response to my letter of 12 December 2019, of which I attach a signed copy.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

Having still received no response, he sent a further reminder thus, with a signed copy of each of the earlier letters:

BY RECORDED DELIVERY

5 February 2020

Dear Mr Wood

RE: MR NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN (“MR BROWN”)

Please note that I have not received a response to my letter of 12 December 2019, despite my reminder of 14 January 2020.  I attach a signed copy of each.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

Having still received no response (and having examined the website of the NSS), he sent a further reminder thus:

BY RECORDED DELIVERY

5 March 2020

Dear Mr Wood

RE: MR NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN (“MR BROWN”)

I have still not received a response to my letter of 12 December 2019, despite my reminders of 14 January and 5 February 2020.

I find your organisation bizarre, not only because I have still received no communication from it but also because its website shows that Mr Brown is one of several honorary associates who are prominent members of political parties which have persistently ignored or opposed many of its policies (for example, in favour of disestablishment of the Church of England, a ban on circumcision of boys and, more importantly, abolition of faith schools and a ban on inhumane slaughter of animals).  It is as if Friends of the Earth had given titles to US Republican Senators and Saudi Government Ministers.

Furthermore, in relation to inhumane slaughter, Mr Brown, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1998-2001, was in charge of implementation of the Government's cruel policy.

What question(s), if any, have you asked him in connection with the article on www.cronies.org.uk and what response(s), if any, have you received?

Why has he been given an honorary associateship?

Please reply by Recorded Delivery.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

The Post Office website shows that the letters of 5 February and 5 March 2020 were delivered but Mr Appleby has still received no response.  He comments as follows:

There are several possible explanations for this, but none very flattering to the NSS.  At best, it is seriously disorganised.

There are probably people who keenly support NSS policies and are legitimately in the Labour Party wholly or mainly to promote them within it but Mr Brown is very unlikely to be one of them. Had he, at Labour Party meetings, openly supported the NSS policies referred to above and, by implication, objected to long-standing Labour policies on important issues, he would almost certainly not have been given the post of Chief Whip.

This addendum is not intended to prompt debate on whether there is a being who created the Universe.  It is intended to show that NSS officials have questions to answer and that Labour politicians have even more questions to answer than were evident from the original article. Mr Corbyn may have given Mr Brown the post of Chief Whip for some purpose(s) not publicly explained.

BIZARRE BEHAVIOUR OF THE NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY

Dear Professor Dawkins

The last article on my website, www.cronies.org.uk, refers to the National Secular Society.  In view of your connection with the Society, the article may, through no fault of yours, undermine your reputation.  I suggest that you question Mr Wood etc. and consider whether to dissociate yourself from the Society.  If you inform me that you have dissociated yourself from it, I shall, of course, add an addendum to this effect.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

TO PROFESSOR ALICE ROBERTS, PRESIDENT OF HUMANISTS UK

THE RT HON NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN MP (“MR BROWN”)

Parts of the last article on my website, www.cronies.org.uk, relate to Mr Brown.

I note that he is classified as a “patron” of your organisation.  I suggest that you question him in writing and consider whether he should be allowed to remain associated with it. 

Yours sincerely 

Thomas H Appleby

THE RT HON NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN MP (“MR BROWN”)

Dear Professor Roberts 

Please note that I have not received a response to my e-mail of 4 May 2020. 

Yours sincerely 

Thomas H Appleby 

Dear Thomas

Unfortunately Professor Roberts is unable to respond personally to all correspondence however we will pass on your comments to the relevant team members. 

Regards  

Humanists UK
39 Moreland Street, London EC1V 8BB | 020 7324 3060

Humanists UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (no. 285987). You can support our work for a tolerant world where reason and kindness prevail by becoming a member or donating today. Thank you.

Humanists UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (no. 285987). You can support our work for a tolerant world where reason and kindness prevail by becoming a member or donating today. Thank you.

TO PROFESSOR ALICE ROBERTS, PRESIDENT OF HUMANISTS UK

THE RT HON NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN MP (“MR BROWN”)

Dear Professor Roberts

With reference to my e-mail of 11 June 2020 and the further interim response sent by one or more of your colleagues on 17 June 2020, you evidently do not personally respond to every communication addressed to you as President. This, in itself, is acceptable but please ensure that my e-mail of 4 May 2020 is properly dealt with on behalf of Humanists UK.

As regards the references to “our Patrons” in the e-mail of 17 June 2020, your colleagues are welcome to ask Mr Brown to contact me** but by doing so they would not relieve Humanists UK of any responsibility. 

Yours sincerely 

Thomas H Appleby

Professor Alice Roberts
President
Humanists UK
39 Moreland St
LONDON
EC1V 8BB

11 July 2020

Dear Professor Roberts

THE RT HON NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN MP (“MR BROWN”)

With reference to my e-mail of 4 May 2020 and subsequent related e-mails, please answer the following questions or ensure that they are answered by someone else on behalf of Humanists UK:

• What question(s), if any, has Mr Brown been asked, on behalf of Humanists UK, in connection with the article on www.cronies.org.uk, and what response(s), if any, has / have been received?

• Why is he allowed to be a “patron” of Humanists UK?

I list below all e-mails I have sent to or received from your organisation.  Please verify that they are all correct.

• My e-mail of 4 May 2020 to you

• My e-mail of 24 May 2020 to you

• An e-mail of 25 May 2020 from Humanists UK to me

• My e-mail of 11 June 2020 to you

• An e-mail of 17 June 2020 from Humanists UK to me

• My e-mail of 25 June 2020 to you

For your convenience, the text of every e-mail listed above is reproduced below.

THE TEXTS ARE ALL SHOWN ABOVE AND HENCE NOT REPRODUCED HERE.

Please ensure that a reply is sent by Recorded Delivery.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

Professor Alice Roberts
President
Humanists UK
39 Moreland St
LONDON
EC1V 8BB

24 July 2020

Dear Professor Roberts

THE RT HON NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN MP (“MR BROWN”)

I sent you a letter by Recorded Delivery on 11 July 2020 but, according to the Royal Mail website, it has still not been delivered.  I do not know why.  However, the text of it is reproduced below.

Professor Alice Roberts
President
Humanists UK
39 Moreland St
LONDON
EC1V 8BB

2 September 2020

Dear Professor Roberts

THE RT HON NICHOLAS HUGH BROWN MP (“MR BROWN”)

I have not received a response to my letter of 24 July 2020.

The Royal Mail website satisfies me that the letter was delivered to your organisation on 28 July 2020.  I attach a print, which I have signed for identification, of the relevant part of that website.

What is the full name of the individual who received the letter?

What are the full names of all your organisation's officials who are aware of its contents?

Please ensure that a letter which contains answers to the above questions and to those in my letter of 24 July 2020 is sent to me by Recorded Delivery.

Yours sincerely

Thomas H Appleby

HOME