REPLYING to Mr Alan's request that I comment on British ex-pats claiming better social benefits in other countries in the EU. I do not doubt that the facts quoted are correct.

What puzzles me is that EU supporters seize on beneficial facts but ignore opposing facts. Drawing a line down a page with good facts on one side and bad facts on the other shows that we lose far more than we gain by being in the EU.

Actually, Mr. Alan, I am not preoccupied with the subject, I'm more concerned with what Anthony Reeve points out in the letter following yours.

Right from the start when Edward Heath signed away certain of our rights and on to the present day the whole process has been unlawful because it is against the British Constitution.

I'm puzzled why someone who has sufficient funds has not taken the matter to a judicial review.

I think possibly the reason is the use of the emotive word treason. As soon as the word is mentioned most people's interest goes because they think that the people using the word are cranks.

People immediately think of Guy Fawkes and the like whereas they cannot get their head around the fact  politicians signing away the rights and liberties of the queen's subjects actually cause more damage than Guy Fawkes would have done had he been successful.

Nothing unusual in the above. But people's apathy amazes me. Take for instance your council operating outside its own constitution.

The whole council voted to stop the car parking charges in Mitcheldean. Did it stop? No because the Cabinet decided to ignore the vote. Then the council's solicitor, whose job it is to uphold the council's own constitution,  backs the cabinet using the excuse "that it's not against the framework policy."

What nonsense that is. To show how ridiculous it is, I gave as an example how the Cabinet could support the opening of a gay club on council premises because "it isn't against the framework policy."

What have your councillors done? Nothing  and the police so far have refused to do anything­.

Another instance. The three chief constables met after an investigating officer of lesser rank wrote his report about the three police federation reps lying about the MP in the plebgate affair.

The three chief constables decided to alter the report by leaving out the recommendations of the investigating officer.

He wanted proceedings to be taken whereas the three chiefs recommended no action.

These three chiefs should be reported for conspiring to pervert the course of justice but to date I can't get anyone to do anything about it.

By anyone, I mean the Gloucestershire Constabulary and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabularies.

Contrast this with another case where hospital workers who altered records to cover up deficiencies are being investigated by the police. I suppose that's alright then because they are not one of us.

As an ex constable and federation rep, I was absolutely disgusted by the three federation reps.

You can imagine how I felt when the actions of the three chief constables came to light.

Three chief constables who are in charge of organisations dedicated to upholding truth and justice?

I'll add that these are my views. Actually I would love the persons mentioned to sue me; but they will not because what I am alleging is true.

Pleased to be classed as a crank.

– John Timbrell, Drybrook.