Business Name

BULLETIN OF NUCLEAR VETERANS AND CHILDREN ISSUE 19

fissionline

Secondary Story Headline

This story can fit 75-125

words.

Your headline is an impor-

tant part of the newsletter

and should be considered

carefully.

In a few words, it should

accurately represent the con-

tents of the story and draw

readers into the story. De-

velop the headline before you

write the story. This way, the

headline will help you keep

the story focused.

Examples of possible head-

lines include Product Wins

Industry Award, New Prod-

uct Can Save You Time!,

Membership Drive Exceeds

Goals, and New Office

Opens Near You.

PAGE 2 FISSIONLINE 19

On June 5, 2009, in the High Court, Mr Justice Foskett handed down a decision that caused panic in the Ministry of De-fence. In a landmark ruling Foskett allowed more than 1,000 nuclear veterans to go to trial, paving the way for a possible jack-pot pay-out running into hundreds of millions of pounds. But Foskett made it clear it would be best if the two sides reached a mediated settle-ment under the government’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme rather than pursue further costly court action. QC’s for both sides, Benjamin Browne for the veterans, and Charles Gibson for the MoD began negotiations. This is where things begin to get murky. While the horse trading went on, ru-mours began circulating that the MoD had offered £30 million to settle the veterans’ claims, but that this had been rejected by their lawyers. Neil Sampson for Rosenblatts, the law firm representing the veterans strenu-ously denied this, but the rumours per-sisted. And to the lawyer’s frustration they were given credence by Defence Minister Kevan Jones who alleged in Parliament that an offer had been made, although he could not disclose the amount. In a statement to the House on December 10, 2009, he alleged the pro-

posal was conveyed to Rosenblatts coun-sel Benjamin Browne, adding that a fol-low-up email confirming the “offer” had been sent. This was again vociferously denied by Rosenblatts, but the damage had been done and the MoD, with a bottomless pit of taxpayers money at its disposal, took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which it duly won. Left with no alternative, Rosenblatts ploughed on to the Supreme Court, but the spectre of the perceived refusal by the veterans to settle hung like a long shadow over the proceedings. The MoD by the narrowest of margins prevailed again. The judges clearly felt the veterans should have followed Foskett’s advice and settled with the Ministry of Defence. Rosenblatts again protested, but their protests fell on deaf ears. To try to get to the truth, fissionline contacted Jones for his version of events. In an email he insisted that a “settlement proposal” had indeed been made, adding: “This has been denied by the veterans lawyers, but I have no reason to question the QCs or the MoD civil servants that a settlement proposal was made.” Which all seems pretty conclusive. The only problem for Jones is it’s simply not true. Using Freedom of Information laws we contacted the Ministry of Defence’s

Common Law Claims and Policy Divi-sion Directorate of Business Resilience,

responsible for the holding the purse strings. Back came the reply:- “We are able to confirm that discussions did take place...These discussions came to an end without agreement. For the avoidance of any doubt...no formal offer was made at any time to the Claimants.” Benjamin Browne QC also confirmed to fissionline that no formal offer was made. These unequivocal statements prove that the Ministry of Defence was, at the very least, being economical with the truth. The revelation should have fatally undermined its position and placed the MoD in the acutely embarrassing position of trying to explain to both. Kevan Jones and its own Policy Division two completely opposite versions of what happened. Unfortunately fissionline’s revelations came too late to alter the course of events. The seeds of doubt sown by the backroom boys at the MoD had taken root leaving Rosenblatts a crippling £5million out of pocket and the veterans entire legal challenge in disarray. It was a perfect stitch-up.

Towers of Deceit

L to R: Judge Foskett, Kevan Jones MP, Ben Browne QC, Charles Gibson QC, Neil Sampson, Rosenblatts

The imposing Ministry of Defence building in central London is home to a culture of lies and deceit. Here we show how Britain’s nuclear veterans fell victim to a classic stitch-up.

PAGE 3 BULLETIN OF NUCLEAR VETERANS AND CHILDREN

The top medical expert advising the government on whether nuclear vet-erans should be given pensions for illnesses they believe were caused by radioactive fallout has said low doses of radiation can be good for you. Dr Anne Braidwood, shocked the special Ionising Radiation Appeals Tribunal under Judge Stubbs, by declaring: “There are some people who believe that low doses of radia-tions are actually useful. It’s called the hermetic effect” Dr Braidwood, whose official title is Senior Medical Adviser to the Dep-uty Chief of Defence Staff, added: “I’m sitting bathed in radiation right now...if one has photons of radiation around I’m not sure how one differ-entiates their potential (as being) associated with adverse health ef-fects.” Under cross examination from veter-ans’ solicitor Neil Sampson of Lon-don law firm Rosenblatts , Dr Braid-wood refused to accept that long-term effects of radiation on the body was always harmful. Asked directly by Sampson if she believed that radiation., however, small is harmful? Braidwood an-swered, ‘No.’ In a tense exchange, SAMPSON reading from an official document asked: “External radiation of the body by alpha particles is a very serious hazard. Would you agree

with that statement?” BRAIDWOOD: I think it depends on its location in the body. SAMPSON: If radioactive particles are suspended in the air, is that dan-gerous for people to inhale? BRAIDWOOD: I don’t know. SAMPSON: It’s a very simple ques-tion Dr Braidwood. Do you agree that airborne contamination is a haz-ard which is both insidious and physiologically dangerous? BRAIDWOOD: I don’t know. SAMPSON: So you don’t know if inhaling radioactive particles is dan-gerous? BRAIDWOOD: I’m not really sure where you are trying to take me, sir. I’m sorry, I’m a bit confused. SAMPSON: I’m just trying to estab-lish, as you are the medical adviser in relation to these appeals — and in-deed hundreds if not thousands of war pensions on medical grounds. I’m just trying to establish the extent of you medical knowledge. Do you think inhaling radioactive particles is dangerous? BRAIDWOOD: I’m doing it right now. I think it depends on dose, quality and all sorts of other issues. Dr Braidwood revealed she had been examining war pension claims from nuclear veterans since 1991, but de-nied she was the government’s lead-ing expert in ionizing radiation, add-

ing “I’m just a medical adviser.” SAMPSON: Do you advise ministers in relation to radiation? BRAIDWOOD: No. SAMPSON: Whom do you advise? BRAIDWOOD: Nobody, really. SAMPSON: Well, do you advise the deputy chief of defence staff? BRAIDWOOD: No. I merely work in his area. SAMPSON: I won’t go in to the vaga-ries of government, but I find your title a little confusing if you don’t actually do what it says on the packet. You’ve been a practicing medical doctor in the past. Have you any experience of treat-ing individuals who have been con-taminated by irradiated material? BRAIDWOOD: No, is the answer. SAMPSON: Could I ask you as the government’s leading expert… BRAIDWOOD: I’m not the govern-ment’s leading expert on anything. SAMPSON: I’d understood you are the principal adviser to the Secretary of State on these matters. BRAIDWWOD: No, absolutely not. That is not the case. Dr Braidwood who was in the witness box for two days, described her role at the MoD as keeping a watching brief on advances in medicine, and advising individual medical advisers in her de-partment on difficult medical cases. Next issue: Stubbs Part Three. More startling revelations

There She Glows Stubbs Part Two: Doctor glows best: Ministry of Defence’s top medical adviser says she does

not know if swallowing radiation is bad, but insists low doses of radiation can do you good

PAGE 4 FISSIONLINE 19

I have always been interested in the problems facing the

servicemen who participated in the UK atomic weapons testing of the 1950s. As a geneticist I knew that radiation was a problem. And sure you balance the risks up against the advantages, but in general the risks far out-weigh the advantages. It was obvious to me that what happened at the nuclear test sites was dangerous to all the people involved. And it didn’t surprise me when these prob-lems were passed on to their children. But as Labour MP I knew the government would be determined to resist the veterans by whatever means. In 2002, hundreds upon hundreds of

nuclear veterans marched on Parliament and I addressed this huge meeting with MPs in Westminster Hall. I had never seen the place so packed. Behind the scenes the government was worried, and there was talk of finally set-tling with the veterans. There were hopeful signals coming out of Tony Blair’s office. I and others were getting encouraged by some pretty powerful people to go ahead with the campaign. The pressure was paying off and I eventually joined forces with John Baron, a Tory MP, and we set up an enquiry together. Experts from all over came to Westminster, but the Ministry of Defence refused to cooperate. They sent along observers who just sat at the back and watched. After the inquiry we went to see Kevan Jones who was the Veterans minister. He got all the people including their special adviser Dr Braidwood down to meet us. Braidwood was always hovering in the background. She was brought forward as the expert for the government on it all. They were relaxed and cordial meetings, very profes-

sional. No double gin and tonics or anything like that. By this time I had been to New Zealand to meet Professor Al Rowland from Massey University, the author of the Rowland Report. He was a very nice guy. I had a long, long chat with him and I was very impressed by his work. He had quite a bit of trouble convincing people in his own country that his work was very sound. I think that was not because of the work, but because of the implications of the work that was the problem. I mean it meant they were going to have to pay compensation. He showed me all his results and gave me his thesis, his papers and so on. I promised to raise this with the British Government because this was good evidence and we should be doing the same thing. The British government were clearly aware of the report’s importance.

Kevan Jones was very impressed and told me we were doing all the right things to get Row-land’s work replicated in the UK. My strength was that I knew enough about genetics and chromosomes and the different banding patterns to understand the details of Rowland. I have an honours degree from Edinburgh University in genetics. So I knew about all the technologies that were develop-ing. By this time we had estimates of how much a Rowland-type study would cost in the UK and there were reputable people who were keen on doing the work. There were people who would do it with a £100,000 grant or thereabout. At the same time Kevan Jones gave us the nod that they would like to do it. We had at least half a dozen meetings, in the Ministry of De-fence. It’s a strange place with all sorts of funny peo-ple hiding behind pillars. But we didn’t find it particularly intimidating. We got to Kevan Jones’s office and I don’t recall any strong arguments against Rowland. The only argu-ment was how do we get in touch with all the

people and the children and so on. Who has got that information? And I seem to remember that the nuclear vets offered to provide that. Now whether they had it or not I don’t know. Or whether they were just trying to slow it down, I’ve no idea. But it just dragged on and on. There were other meetings and I don’t know what happened with those regarding the nuke vets. They weren’t talking to me individu-ally or encouraging me; there wasn’t a great relationship with them at all that I had. I mean I had a better relationship with the minister But I kept asking questions and speaking to Kevan Jones about it but we didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I couldn’t understand it. We had the two major parties represented and I think that was a real plus. John Baron and I had no argu-ments whatsoever; we both believed something would happen. But then Kevan suddenly just went quiet on it all. Whether that was because he believed the work was being set up I don’t know. But it just died. It just went deadly quiet and of course then there was a change of government, and nothing has happened since. But there is no reason why a Rowland-type study can’t be carried out today in the UK. In fact the techniques have im-proved and it will be a lot easier to carry out than when it was first done. Rowland showed there was something identifiable with this group of veterans which had not been seen anywhere and certainly not seen in the in the control population. This is vital and very crucial research. It should be being carried out now on the nuclear veterans and anyone else involved in radiation. I am not going to accept any of this nonsense that they can’t get the names and addresses; of course they can. I have been associated with the Anglia group of nuclear veterans who are very impressive; very big, very active. They have talked about all these issues. They are a very impressive group and I still go along to it. They could find the money and support if it was properly organised. Other branches and groups could too. You would only need about 200 veterans for blood tests. These could be carried out in local universities like London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Norwich all over the country. Money could be collected to pay somebody a post Doc or a graduate student or what-ever under the supervision of some good scientist. I am certainly willing to put my name to such a project and we might even be able to persuade Al Rowland to oversee it as an adviser. If his findings among the NZ veterans were replicated in the UK then I believe the government would have to give the nuclear veterans the justice they so richly deserve. They really wouldn’t have a choice. So let’s get to it.

Rowland’s the Key Starting today: A major new initiative to achieve justice for the victims of Britain’s A-bomb tests.

PAGE 5 BULLETIN OF NUCLEAR VETERANS AND CHILDREN

The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected the latest bid by Britain’s nuclear veterans to achieve justice through the legal process. More than 700 veterans from the UK and other countries applied to the Court for legal aid ar-rangements be made to enable them to fund a new Court action for compensation. Neil Sampson, for Rosenblatts solicitors, argued that the large number of servicemen who partici-pated in the tests and the complex and incom-plete nature of the scientific evidence were grounds for the usual conditions applying to legal aid to be over-ruled. But in a 12-page judgement the panel of seven judges, declared: “Since the applicants were able to vigorously to pursue their claims as far as the Supreme Court, the Court finds it hard to con-clude that they were denied access to court. “The litigation undertaken was complex and very expensive. The Court notes in this connection that the applicants’ costs awarded against the MoD at first instant were estimated at £11.8 million and that the MoD’s costs were in excess of £5.6 million.

“Against this background it was reasonable for the State authorities to decide that no further public money should be spent on funding litigation which objectively appeared to have no reasonable prospects at all of success. “Moreover, it considers it relevant that an alternative scheme for the provision of com-pensation to nuclear test veterans has been established. In proceedings before a tribunal for the award of a military disablement pen-sion, the burden is on the Government to prove that the claimant’s illness was not caused by his or her military service. In the Court’s view, it fell within the State’s margin of appreciation to decide to channel public funds into this alternative means of access to a court for the provision of compensation, rather than to continue to provide legal aid to the applicants in respect of further specu-lative and highly costly litigation in the High Court. It follows that the applicants’ com-plaints are manifestly ill-founded and there-fore inadmissible. For these reasons the Court, unanimously, declares the application inadmissible.”

Paul Mahoney, an Oxford University-educated barrister, was the only Brit-ish representative on the seven-man panel that decided the Nuke Vet’s fate. Mahoney, 65, lectured in law at

University College London for six years before practising for a short time at the bar in London during the 1970s. He has spent most of his career working for European institutions.

EU Slams the Door

Ministry of Defence Are Just Scared of the Truth

Nuke Vets crushed: Euro Court unanimously declares complaints ‘manifestly ill-founded’

By Dave Whyte I am awaiting two pension appeal hearings in the ‘Upper Tier Courts’. One in Lon-don, the other in Edinburgh. As yet, I have not been in court, and I have not had an opportunity to express my evidence verbally regarding my ailments caused by radia-tion. It now appears I am to be denied the opportunity of speaking at Edinburgh, as the hearing is to be held behind closed doors. Having seen some of the evidence pro-duced in the defence of other litigants, it has become apparent that most of the evi-dence has been ‘Doctored’ in preference of the Ministry of Defence. In my own case: Some documents cannot be found, or they are altered to give a different view from the truth. I believe the truth is: The Ministry of Defence are afraid to reveal what ac-tually occurred during the nuclear tests. I also believe they have a greater input into the legal services in our Country than they are prepared to admit. I still believe we have a fair judicial system, providing, the truth is presented for hearing. Up till now, they have only been permitted to hear the ‘warped’ evidence of the Ministry of De-fence, the AWE, the NRPB (now the HPE) and the SPVA.

fissionline

ans’ legal representatives were wrongly painted as “ greedy lawyers” while the MoD, perceived as a model of proberty, was able to extricate it-self from what could have been a disastrous multi-million pound High Court action brought by hundreds of nuclear veterans. *

So now we know: By her own admission the gov-ernment’s perceived top expert on the medical effects of radiation is not an expert at all. Dr Anne Braidwood, despite her grand-sounding title as

Senior Medical Adviser to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, is a mere functionary, there to evaluate and pass on information as it becomes available. According to her testimony to the Stubbs Tribunal she is “not

There is something very dark at the heart of the Ministry of Defence. What are we to make of the latest disclosure, uncovered by fissionline, that someone in the Ministry is tell-ing “porkies” over an alleged “offer” of compensation to Britain’s nuclear veterans? By all accounts MP Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence min-ister, is an honourable man who would never dream of misleading Parliament. But he must have been mis-lead by someone when he stood up in the House and said that an offer had been made when, as fis-sionline has shown, this was simply not the case. Whoever was behind it must be patting themselves on the back. For the upshot was the veter-

the government’s leading expert”, and doesn’t advise the Deputy Chief of De-fence Staff or indeed the Secretary of State for Defence “on anything.” Dr Braidwood has been giving her medical opinion on countless nuclear veterans with complex medical problems for 23 years. I would not dream of suggesting that Dr Braid-wood is not up to the job, but is this long-standing MoD non-expert really in a posi-tion to decide the fate of thousands of hapless nuclear veterans desperate for a pension? * Every nuclear veteran should get behind Dr Ian Gibson in his campaign to hold a Rowland-type study in the UK. Professor Al Rowland’s ground-breaking work is scientific proof that New Zealand service-men who took part in nuclear bomb tests were damaged by radiation. If a similar result was found in UK servicemen, then the government would be forced to act.

The Dark Art of the MoD

For a few years now a group of Humberside Vets have been meeting up in Blackpool for a social weekend. If any Vets and their families would like to join us they would be more than welcome. We stay at The Granville Hotel 12 Station Road Blackpool, ( South Shore,) and the dates are weekend 13,14,15, June 2014, so that is Friday till Sunday, telephone 01253 343012. The owners Pat and Wilf Taylor will make as many as possible most welcome and if they are sold out will get you booked in somewhere very close by. It is well worth it if only for the “crack” from Wilf who is a total nut case and Pat is an excellent cook. Denis Shaw

So, the Commission on Human Rights, Strasbourg, has declined our application to be heard. I have some details on the Commissions decision which does raise some questions as to how they arrived at such a decision. One major point is the apparent little interest that the Commission paid to the Massey University research on the NZ Grapple veterans. In particular the ignoring of the conclusion of the 'NZ Ministerial Advisory Group on Veterans Health' that upheld the Massey University re-search and that the detected genetic damage found in the NZ veterans was due to their Grapple ser-vice. There is evidence that the UK Government offered to research the UK Veterans to reinforce the findings of the NZ study but the offer was rejected by the BNTVA. Had this research gone ahead and produced the same results as the NZ genetic research, then there is no doubt this would have had a major and positive effect on the legal hearings in the UK. Roy Sefton QSM, Chair, NZ Nuclear Test Veterans Association.

Well, like the nuclear veterans we here in West Cumbria were all part of the big bomb experiment and are still being exposed. No-one seems to care if a small child in-gests a hot particle while eating his picnic butty on the beach with ‘sandy’ fingers and gets cancer in later life. Copeland Council does not want to know. And because it does not want to scare tourists away, it stops radiation monitoring during bank and school holidays. They even arrange beach sculpture fun days for kids and encour-age them to build sandcastles and get really dirty. Of course none of these officials would be able to guarantee they could not pick up one of the hot particles. Janine Allis-Smith, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment

fissionline, the authentic voice of nuclear veterans, continues to grow: At the last count there were

over 8,000 readers with more joining every day. Get the newspaper that really matters by emailing:

fissionline@gmail.com. Or you can get it on the web by Googling: ISSUU fissionline. It’s FREE!