Sunday, 12 May 2019

What did the Labour Party DO for the North East-

History of the Labour Party in North East England! 
Andrew Cunningham 
Andrew Cunningham, was the most powerful man in the North-East of England until he was jailed in 1974 for his part in the "web of corruption" operated by the architect John Poulson and Newcastle's "city boss" T Dan Smith.  
Cunningham and his wife, May, outside their home in 1969 Photo: NORTH NEWS & PICTURES 
5:08PM BST 28 Oct 2010 
In return for holidays from Poulson and a sinecure for his wife, Cunningham steered contracts the architect's way from the many public bodies he chaired and from Labour councils he could influence.  
With prime minister Harold Wilson in 1967  
As regional secretary of the General and Municipal Workers' Union (now GMB) representing 100,000 members, Andy Cunningham exerted immense power and patronage through the union – and the Labour Party, as its regional chairman and a Right-wing member of its National Executive Committee (NEC).  
A Durham county alderman and chairman of Felling council (later a Chester-le-Street councillor), Cunningham became an autocratic chairman of Durham Police Authority, the Northumbrian River Authority, Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority and the North-East Regional Airport Committee, and Poulson reaped the benefits of his power.  
Nothing moved in the North-East without Cunningham's say-so. At the moment of his disgrace, he secured his home seat of Chester-le-Street for a GMWU nominee against the strong claims of the Durham miners. The by-election turned into a plebiscite on the "Cunningham gang" and Labour's candidate – the blameless Giles Radice – only squeaked home.  
While awaiting trial, Cunningham orchestrated the deselection of the Labour MP Eddie Milne for demanding an inquiry into the party's links with Poulson; Milne held his seat as an Independent and took his campaign to Westminster, to Labour's national embarrassment.  
Few – locally or nationally – dared challenge the former docker who drove around in a white union-owned Jaguar.  
After Labour's unexpected defeat in June 1970, Cunningham was the only member of the NEC to tell Harold Wilson to his face that he had made a mistake in going to the country prematurely. He had been as forthright the year before in standing up for Barbara Castle's In Place of Strife reform package as fellow union leaders organised to kill it.  
Nor did anyone dispute the vigour with which he worked to further the interests of his union's members, or make the North-East a better, more prosperous place to live. But it was Cunningham's eagerness to accelerate Felling council's housing programme in the early 1960s that caught the eye of Smith, who was already on Poulson's payroll. Smith duly introduced Cunningham to Poulson.  
Over six years Poulson paid for Cunningham to take holidays in Bournemouth, Brighton and Estoril, and Cunningham steered important building contracts his way: for his union's regional headquarters, a police HQ in Sunderland and a headquarters for the river authority, the last of which was vetoed by Whitehall on grounds of extravagance after Poulson had picked up £37,000 in fees.  
Questions were asked locally about some of these projects, but Cunningham's corruption might never have come to light had Poulson not omitted to pay £200,000 in income tax and been declared bankrupt.  
At the architect's examination in Wakefield in August 1972, Muir Hunter QC stunned Britain's political and administrative establishment by revealing a web of corruption implicating not just Smith and Cunningham but a Scottish Office mandarin; bureaucrats in local government; British Rail; the National Coal Board; the NHS, three MPs and even – though he was never charged – the Conservative Home Secretary Reginald Maudling, who resigned.  
Cunningham, then 62, was at the zenith of his power. Nothing showed his determination and the forces at his control better than the way he fought to retain his public offices until his arrest almost a year later. He mobilised Labour councillors to block all efforts to oust him, and managed, until formally charged, not only to keep his union job but also to remain chairman of the Police Authority. He even won re-election to the NEC, though the GMWU had to promise unions who backed him that he would go quietly at the end of his term.  

Poulson had already been sentenced to seven years' jail when Cunningham and Smith went on trial at Leeds Crown Court in April 1974; they pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and corruption involving the receipt of £1,766 from Poulson. Total benefits to the Cunninghams were put at £6,756, including the "salary" for his wife, May, whose prosecution was not proceeded with.  
Cunningham blamed Poulson's persistent generosity for his disgrace, declaring: "I made the biggest mistake of my life when I accepted the offer of that two-week holiday in Portugal from John Poulson. I just didn't think it would have led to all this. What is so annoying is that I tried and tried to get invoices for him for the holiday. I kept badgering him, but he was an overwhelmingly generous man and in the end I just gave up asking."  
However Poulson accused Cunningham of having "held me to ransom" by demanding £4,000 worth of holidays; he gave in, he said, because he feared Cunningham might harm his business if the largesse stopped.  
Lord George-Brown praised Cunningham in court as "one of the most outstandingly forthright, courageous, solid and loyal men I have met throughout my political life". Mr Justice Waller nevertheless sentenced him to five years, and the Labour government set up an inquiry into standards in public life.  
At a further trial in April 1976 it was alleged that Cunningham, through his union contacts, had bought at half price the bungalow at Chester-le-Street to which he had moved from a 37s 6d a week council house; he was cleared of having a corrupt relationship with the builder Sidney McCullough, but three fellow councillors were jailed.  
Cunningham's sentence was reduced to three years on appeal, and in June 1976 he was paroled from Ford open prison. Within weeks he had tea with Prime Minister James Callaghan at the home of his son, Jack Cunningham, the GMWU-sponsored MP for Whitehaven, whom Callaghan had retained as his Parliamentary Private Secretary despite the scandal.  
Jack (now Lord) Cunningham went on to restore the family name and serve in Tony Blair's Cabinet. But there would be no rehabilitation for his father; Andy Cunningham's days of power were over and for three decades he lived quietly in retirement at Chester-le-Street 
Andrew Cunningham was born on June 8 1910, the eldest of nine children of a Durham miner. He left school at 14 to work in the Tyne docks and built a formidable power base first as chairman of Felling council; then as a county councillor and alderman; chairman of the Police Authority (in 1962); chairman of the county council (1963) and, the following year, regional secretary of his union.  
The appointments continued to flow and on top of those posts previously mentioned, he was a founder member of the Northern Economic Planning Council and a director of Fairfields Shipbuilders.  
In 1965 he was elected to the trade union section of Labour's NEC, his support peaking in 1967 when he came fifth with 4,934,000 votes.  
Andrew Cunningham died on June 14. He outlived his wife, a former teacher and JP with whom he had three children. 

Saturday, 5 January 2019

Historical Letter to Land Registry in October 2008.

Alan Harvey Flounders

48 Ridlington Way, West-View


Land Registry Durham

24th October 2008.

Dear Sir,

Update and Clarification to me letter of Protest sent yesterday the 23rd October 2008

In which I strongly Object to any attempt to alter the details in the Land Register Title CE74844 “Absolute” on the grounds that the property and land we had purchased all good faith and transferred  from Hartlepool Borough Council on the 1st February 1984 to ALAN HARVEY FLOUNDERS and His Wife JACQUELINE FLOUNDERS Clearly Shown Edged in RED on the “OFFICIAL COPY” of the Pre-Sale Property Plan-M 44684-dated September 1983-Title “Sale of Council House”

48 Ridlington Way West-View Hartlepool

Pursuant to the Housing Act 1980 in Consideration

of £5,750 Pounds

(Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pounds)

I was also Informed by my Solicitor Mr Solomon Levinson that all the outbuildings inside the Boundary lines clearly shown edged in RED on the Property Plan M44684 dated September 1983, were my responsibility and legally ours,

Mr Solomon Levinson Senior Solicitor of the law firm Levinson Walker and Lister further explained the significance of “freehold”

When people buy their house, "freehold" they not only own the house, they also own the land on which the house is built.

He also explained that Under English Law-

No Two People can own the Same piece of Registered Freehold Land

See attached “Official Copy” from Land Registry Durham of Property Plan M44684 Dated September 1983 -Title “Sale of Council House” 48 Ridlington Way, West-view Hartlepool

Please Note the Boundaries of the Estate including the “Outbuildings” edged in RED were Confirmed by the Mayor J. Jones and the Chief Executive of Hartlepool Borough Council Mr. N.J. Abrahams and dated 3/11/197

My Research in the Public Domain (Internet) has revealed some very interesting facts: - I have discovered for Instance that; -

There are three kinds of freehold estates:

Fee Simple Absolute

In English common law, A fee simple absolute is the most extensive interest in real property that an individual can possess this type of estate is generally created when a Deed of Purchase is Registered by Solicitors with Land Registry, it is limited completely to the individual and his or her heirs and assigns forever that the Land is owned completely,

and it is NOT subject to any limitations or conditions my Solicitor Mr Solomon LEVINSON -Senior Partner in the Local LAW Firm

LEVINSON WALKER and LISTER of Church Street Hartlepool—

Had Explained to us that the Whole of the Detached Wash-House Building was Included in our Freehold Property. when I had asked him when arranging the Property Purchase of 48 Ridlington Way West-View from Hartlepool Borough Council on the 1St February 1984 in Pursuant to the Housing Act 1980 in Consideration od £5750.00 Pounds

(Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pounds)

PRIOR to the Exchange of Contracts.

I have already provided you with irrefutable written evidence of the Purchase of our Ex-Council House 48 Ridlington Way-West-View from Hartlepool Borough Council on the 1st February 1985 Pursuant to the Housing Act 1980 in Consideration of £5750.00 pounds

(Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pounds)

The purchase -transfer and registration of any part of our land and property Title CE74844 “Absolute” from Hartlepool Borough Council as claimed to our immediate neighbours Mr and Mrs E Bennison the original B141 applicants was proved to be a fabrication the fact is it never happened.


Here attached is the “Official Copy” of the Property Plan M44684-dated September 1983.

Title “Sale of Council House” 48 Ridlington Way, West-view Hartlepool

Hope this Finally Clarifies the Position and Proves that our Immediate Next-Door Neighbours Mr and Mrs E Bennison B141 Claim of a Previous Purchase is FRAUDULENT.

Yours Sincerely

Alan Harvey Flounders

Thursday, 6 December 2018

Response to Land Registry - F.O.I. Comments

Thursday, 06 December 2018

Dear Emily d’Albuquerque 
I acknowledge and thank you for your six pages back to back notes type letter I received late on Friday 23/11/2018, sent to my home address and not as I would have preferred to this site, WDTK.

To avoid any future misunderstandings
can I request that Land Registry do not send any future F.O.I. Correspondence to my home address but send it to this site-WDTK to ensure all replies to F.O.I. requests are

                      Prominently Displayed in the Public Domain for all to See

I find your response very interesting it is undoubtedly well written but unfortunately, after such a long period of time trying to get Land Registry Durham to correct their blatant mistakes  I am becoming a little cynical-  It is Obvious to me that my Allegations  of Misconduct are been ignored swept under the Carpet your response contains a Catalogue of Plausible but very important factual errors?

I do not doubt for a moment your Personal Honesty or your Integrity, but I believe you have been Deliberately given False Misleading Untruthful Evidence

Simply to Hide the Truth of my allegations of Criminal activity including

 Misconduct and Property Fraud in Public Office

Committed by Officials of LAND REGISTRAR Durham

My FOI request asked specific questions in order to ascertain the truth quickly and effectively-briefly

 I wished to know what British Laws were consulted that allowed the assistant Land Registrar Durham Alan H Smith

Employed in a Position of Trust and Authority in Public Office of a Government Department Land Registry Durham

Groundless and Irrelevant

 from Hartlepool Borough Council on the 1st February 1984 of the Total Area of Land and Property including

 the Dwelling House-the Boundaries and Outbuildings Clearly Edged in RED

 on the Land Registry Durham “Official Copy” of the Property Plan M44684 Dated September 1983


 “Sale of Council House” 48 Ridlington Way

-West-View; Hartlepool

Pursuant to the Housing Act 1980

in Consideration of £5750.00 Pounds

(Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pounds

Registered Title CE74844 “Absolute”

He must have known as a Senior Government Official with Legal knowledge of the LAW on Purchase and registration contained in

Land Registration Act 1925, Land Registration-Act 2002-Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989-

That he was acting unlawfully and Committing Property Fraud intending to Pervert, the Course of Justice when he reject as Groundless and Irrelevant our Legally authenticated Documents of Purchase


Willingly accept as Sufficient evidence of a Previous Purchase of part of our Registered Land and Property Title CE74844 “Absolute” from our Immediate next-door neighbours

 A General Drawing
SP 78985 dated 1971 Showing the Hartlepool Councils
West-View Council House Estate

It is Unbelievable that a Government Official occupying a Position of Trust and authority in Public Office of a Government Department and a qualified Solicitor to boot. would

Considered this MAP of a Council House Estate as Sufficient Evidence for our immediate neighbours

to CHALLENGE the VERACITY of our Legal Purchase of the Ex-Council House 48 Ridlington Way West-View Hartlepool from Hartlepool Borough Council

Pursuant the Housing Act 1980on the 1st February 1984 in Consideration of £5750.00 Pounds

(Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pounds)

As a Solicitor and a Senior Land Registry Official

he must have Known it was NOT a Receipt of Purchase of Land and Property

by our Immediate next-door Neighbours from Hartlepool Borough Council
in November 1972

His Dishonest Disgraceful Degusting Deceitful Behaviour questions the Legal Competence and Integrity of

ALL the Solicitors involved in the Sale and Purchase of the Ex-Council House Land and Property from Hartlepool Borough Council

including the Chief Solicitor of Hartlepool Borough Council 
J. Anthony Brown

Who with Levinson Walker and Lister the “Buyers” Solicitors had Validated the Purchase of the Ex-Council House Land and Property PRIOR to the Exchange of Contracts and PRIOR to the Registration of the Land and Property
 Land Title CE74844 “Absolute” 
 with Land Registry on the 29/3/1984

   This class of title “Absolute” will only be granted by Land Registry-IF-when the title is “FIRST” presented for “Registration” in this case 29th March 1984- the person applying for “Registration” (J. Anthony Brown) Chief Solicitor of Hartlepool Borough Council- the “Sellers” of the Property-can (show an “Unbroken” chain of “Ownership” going back at least- 15 Years-

 this is undoubtedly evidence Confirming that a search had been undertaken-PRIOR the exchange of contracts- in order to allow time to deal with any issues which may arise-

 this clearly supports our belief- that NO previous "Conveyance or Purchase" 
of any part- of our registered freehold property, Land Title  CE74844 “Absolute” had previously take place between our immediate neighbours and the Hartlepool Borough Council- in November 1972-

As falsely claimed by the assistant-Land Registrar-Alan H Smith- in his letter to us-dated 3rd December 2008-

its beggar’s belief that someone in a Senior position of trust and authority in Public Office of Land Registry-Durham   could allow himself to be party to an obvious fraudulent B141 
application-containing a spurious document falsely claiming that they have Title to that piece of land on which they had illegally erected their kitchen and Taxi-Drivers Toilet- extension Without seeking Council Planning Permission- and Causing Serious Structural Damage- to a neighbour’s private property-intending by deception to avoid the Heavy Financial Cost of Demolition of the Illegal Building

There can be no doubt that the assistant Land Registrar Durham Alan H Smith an experienced Land Registry Official and a Solicitor KNEW he had No Credible Evidence to Justify or Validate his Spurious Letter dated 14th October 2008 to me, saying that Hartlepool Borough Council had made a MISTAKE when we had Purchased our Property- Registered Title CE74844 “Absolute” on the 1st February 1984

It was my belief that Alan H Smith the assistant Land REGISTRAR Durham deliberately designed this letter Intending to
Frighten Intimidate Misinform and Deceive 
the TWO (2)
Very Elderly Vulnerable and Disabled Law- Abiding Innocent Tax Payers into Thinking and Believing that they might have done something Criminally Wrong when they had Purchased in all good faith the Ex-Council House Property 48 Ridlington Way West-View Hartlepool on the 1st February 1984 from Hartlepool Borough Council Pursuant to the Housing Act 1980 in Consideration of £5750.00 Pounds
(Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pounds)
Registered Title CE74844! Absolute

His Letter was in my View a Clear Breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Fraud Act 2006

It is also my belief that "Misconduct” in Public Office is a Common Law Offence: it is not defined in any statute. 
It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment
The offence requires that: a Public Officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without Reasonable excuse or justification."

It is also my Understanding after reading your letter that you have found it difficult to locate some all my historical records relating to this matter?

 A Situation I honestly find unbelievable, as I was under the Impression that Land REGISTRY Durham

 was one (1) of the Main Depositaries of Registered Land and Property Titles in the Country.

I did expect Land Registry Durham would have retained

A Copy of the Letter Dated 16th February 1984 issued by Land Registry Durham themselves

I have therefore taken the Liberty to attach a Copy for your Attention

Freehold Law 

was explained to me by my Solicitor “Solomon Levinson” Head of the Local Firm of Solicitors Levinson Walker & Lister
of Church Street Hartlepool

Mr “Solomon Levinson” Explained to me that in Common Law Jurisdictions, 
a Freehold is the Common Ownership of Real Property or Land, and all immovable structures attached to such land,

When people buy their house “Freehold" they not only own the HOUSE, they also own ALL outbuilding on the land on which the house is built
. Please Note
the Outbuilding (Wash-House) shown on the Land Registry Durham “Official Copy” of the Property Land Plan No. M44 684 dated September 1983 
Registered Title CE74844 “Absolute”

 Shows Cleary it was-Completely Detached from our Immediate neighbour's Property 46 Ridlington Way West-View Hartlepool

I believe it is also important to note the date 3.11 1974
Of the two (2) Valid Signatures of the 
Mayor J Jones and the Chief Executive Mr Abrahams of Hartlepool Borough Council

Which Clearly Contradicts Alan H Smith and your Statement that Part of the Detached Wash-House Building had been Purchased Previously by our Immediate Next-Door Neighbours from Hartlepool Borough Council

Two (2) years earlier on the 3/11/1972

It is My Understand from my research of the Internet

In English Common Law, 
A fee simple absolute is the most extensive interest

 in real property that an individual can possess

It is also my Understanding that this type of estate Registered Title CE74844 “Absolute”

was Created when the Deed of Purchase was Registered

 by J Anthony Brown
the Chief Solicitor of Hartlepool Borough Council
with Land Registry Durham on the 29.3.1984.

it is limited Completely to the individual and his or her heirs and assigns forever that the Land is Owned Completely, and it is NOT subject to any limitations or Condition

The Official Copy of the Property Plan No-M44684 dated September 1983

Hookway Adam -Correspondence

& enquiries Team Leader-

Customer Service 19th October 2009.

Head Office- Land Registry-Direct Line 020-7166-4831

Who said if the property is Conveyed and Registered an “Official Copy” of the Register of Title is “ALL” that is needed to prove ownership?

There is Sufficient authentic Documentary Evidence to Prove that our Immediate next-door Neighbours did NOT Purchase any part of the Registered property CE74844 “Absolute” 
from Hartlepool Borough Council on the 3/11/1972

Therefore, there could NOT Possibly have been any Details of purchase by our immediate neighbours of Land and Property from Hartlepool Borough Council in 1972 conveyed and transferred by a Conveyance Solicitor to Officials of Land Registry Durham

 to accurately Record this non-existing Purchase in the Property or Proprietary Registers at Land Registry Durham in November 1972

To Claim ownership of Land and Property without any evidence of Purchase is Deceitful – Dishonest-plain Theft.

 My Evidence of Purchase was Confirmed and Validated By Land Registry Durham themselves in their Letter dated 16th February 1984


Rejected by the assistant Land Registrar Durham Alan H Smith and his Colleague Anthony Lowes
Which Proves that there is Something Radically Dishonest Happening at Land Registry Durham.

Rt. Hon Lord Denning the late Lord Chief Justice

 -said in  
His Appeal Court Ruling January
 was –No Court in this Land will allow a person
  to keep an advantage, he has Obtained by FRAUD 
NO Judgement of a Court, NO order of a Minister
 can be allowed to stand if it has been Obtained by FRAUD 
FRAUD unravels everything

My original allegations of Misconduct in Public Office by Officials of Land Registry Durham

 Were Investigated by Mrs Dorrington the Land Registry Complaints Reviewer who awarded me a payment of £300.00 pounds and an apology for mistakes made by
 officials of Land Registry Durham

I Refused to accept the payment of £300.00. Pounds and returned it to Land Registry London
I explained that for me to have accepted the Payment of £300.00 
would have indicated that I had accepted that their mistakes and the theft of part of my Registered Land and Property Title CE74844 “Absolute” had been innocently made by Alan H Smith assistant Land Registrar Durham and his Colleague Anthony Lowes

This is Simply NOT True-

I have enough authentic Compelling evidence of Purchase that Proves I am the Innocent Victim of an Orchestrated SCAM the Theft of Land and Property

I maintain there was No Mistake made in the in the Land Register as Claimed by the assistant Land Registrar Durham Alan H Smith

Extensive Searches of ALL Previous Ex-Council House Sales

 have Proven that Hartlepool Borough Council did NOT sell part of our Ex-Council House Property Registered Title CE74844 “Absolute”
 to our Immediate neighbours in 1972

Therefore, if there was NO purchase of part of our Registered Title CE74844 “Absolute” by our Immediate Neighbours in 1972 from Hartlepool Borough Council 

How Could it Possibly have been Conveyed by Solicitors on behalf of our Immediate neighbours for Inclusion in the 
Land Title DU 37533 at Land Registry Durham 

How then Can the Assistant Land Registrar Durham Alan H Smith and our Immediate neighbours claim as they have- that there was a MISTAKE made in the Register at Land Registry Durham.
It Is a Clear Indication of Criminal Deception and Property FRAUD.

Unfortunately, you have Stated that you have Enclosed a Copy of this Supposed Conveyance of the Property in Question

in your Letter to me dated 22 November 2018.

that was Incorrect!

There was NO Copy of ANY description

Enclosed in your letter
If the Non-inclusion of the elusive Supposed Document of previous Purchase and Conveyance of the Property by our Immediate next-door neighbours from Hartlepool Borough Council in November 1972 
 was an Innocent Oversight on Your Part?

Would you be kind enough to send a Copy to me.

I have been attempting for the Past (10) Ten Years to be Shown this Supposed Document of Purchase without SUCCESS  

I repeat I  am the Innocent Vitim of an Orchestrated


 by those named Officials employed in Public Office

of Land Registry Durham

 Which I refuse to Withdraw

What Does Land Registry Durham Propose to do about It?

Report it the Proper Authorities- the Police?


Continue to Ignore My Allegations

No-0ne  in Land Registry can claim in future they were Unaware of my Allegations
Yours Sincerely

Alan Harvey Flounders


Land Registry London

The Labour Member of Parliament for Hartlepool