- You neglected to mention that in order to remedy this, NAHS/HFMA were forced to make an application to file additional evidence on the day of the actual Court Hearing on 30 January. They narrowly avoided having the Government press for an adjournment of their case (no doubt because ANH had made clear that whatever happened to your case it was ready and was still going to proceed with its separate case) because of this late filing of evidence and suffered Mr Justice Richards' clear displeasure.
- Your Witness Statements were indeed constructed without reference to ANH's evidence. However it was never agreed by or even requested of ANH that your barristers could refer to ANH evidence in their Skeleton Argument and at the Hearing.
- Indeed such reliance on ANH evidence was flagrant and quite unauthorised yet it amounted to a major plank in the rather unorthodox argument your barristers introduced at the last minute at the Hearing (by way of an amended Grounds of Challenge for which they also required permission from the Judge) in respect of Article 133 of the EC Treaty.
- ANH is taking credit for work done by HFMA and CHC.
- You fail to give any specific particulars of this allegation.
- And rather perversely the very complaint you make against ANH can be made against you.
- You assert that together with CHC you "...were responsible for the lobby which led to the House of Lords last year voting 2 to 1 to reject the Foods Supplements Regulations."
- In fact we would venture to suggest that Earl Howe could rightfully take the credit for this result. Secondly ANH (amongst others no doubt beside yourselves) met with Earl Howe prior to the vote in the Lords and indeed provided him with an extensive Briefing Note (see: http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/docs/ANHwebsiteDoc 6.pdf ) in order to assist him in the preparation of his speech for the debate.
- The decision by ANH Directors (Dr Verkerk and David Hinde) not to sign the Heads of Agreement for a joint legal challenge was prompted by self-interested financial considerations
- There is reason to suspect that as a consequence of ANH's position the propriety of its financial management requires investigation
- These allegations are frankly extraordinary. They are quite unfounded, untrue and most distasteful and categorically denied.
- At the Nuneaton Meeting (see Attendance Note) you personally specifically accepted that ANH needed to pay its bills and its staff from funds raised as part of its campaigning. Why do you now complain about this in your letter?
- ANH will be publishing full accounts (which are not even due yet) in the normal way, which will detail fully its financial position.
- Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose: It is to be noted that by contrast:
ANH is also a company limited by guarantee and could also take advantage of such exemptions but we are choosing not to.
- HFMA as an unincorporated association does not publish in a public arena any information as regards it accounts
- Likewise NAHS which is also an unincorporated association
- And whilst CHC being a company limited by guarantee is obliged to file accounts at Companies House it has chosen to take advantage of the Companies Act exemptions and file only abbreviated accounts
IAHF Home Page