Email this site to a contact


[ ]



(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:


If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: '' and click 'Add').



(NOTE above, browser set-up)



While I have irrebutable 'black on white' evidence in support of my conclusions as to the causes of the extremely traumatic, horrendous, life-destroying treatment I am being subjected to since 2002 by the British state and other parties,...

...the objective of this page is to demonstrate that my experience (Case summary ; Résumé de mon cas) is, very sadly, typical, and that informed observers, as well as other parties share my views.




(1 of 5)- "Let’s not fool ourselves. We may not bribe [*], but corruption is rife in Britain" - by George Monbiot - The Guardian, 18 Mar 15

Referring to a book that had just been published, 'How corrupt is Britain?', in his wide-ranging article, George Monbiot discusses the limitations of Transparency International's corruption index.

He then refers to various institutions, police, etc., and, about the financial sector, asks: "Would there still be a commercial banking sector in this country if it weren't for corruption?"

(See also: (1)- British Virgin Islands # 2; (2)- Introduction to the Financial Conduct Authority (or, as Private Eye calls it: 'the Financial Cock-Up Authority').

(*) Actually: YES! Include "BRIBING" as well.

YEP! Definitely "Welcome to [very] bent Britain"!

My experience as a glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime (Case summary) led me to arrive at this conclusion many years ago - as, e.g. in the case of the press which, in 2006, reported on many cases of corruption by the British state.

(Unfortunately, like many others, and to my immense cost: I was conned by the endless lies).

(Typically), in 2015, the then PM David Cameron felt that 'Britain's record' allowed him to lecture other countries on "corruption".

He repeated this in 2016, positioning Britain as a lead-cruzader by hosting an 'anti-corruption event' - preceding it by describing some countries as "fantastically corrupt".


(2 of 5)- "The corruption of Britain: UK’s key institutions infiltrated by criminals", Independent, 10 Jan 14 - by Tom Harper

"The entire criminal justice system was infiltrated by organised crime gangs [1], according to a secret Scotland Yard report leaked to The Independent."

"In 2003 Operation Tiberius was compiled from intelligence sources including covert police informants, live telephone intercepts, briefings from the security services and thousands of historical files..."

"[It] found that men suspected of being Britain’s most notorious criminals had compromised [2] multiple agencies, including HM Revenue & Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, the City of London Police and the Prison Service, as well as pillars of the criminal justice system including juries and the legal profession." (1)

"Tiberius had concluded the Metropolitan Police suffered “endemic police corruption” at the time [3], and that some of Britain’s most dangerous organised crime syndicates were able to infiltrate New Scotland Yard “at will

"A statement by an experienced SIO [senior investigating officer] currently attached to SO 1(3) gives some indication of the depth of the problem in east and north-east London [4]: "I feel that at the current time I cannot carry out an ethical murder investigation without the fear of it being compromised"."

I wonder why this report has been released now?

(1)- It is not just "the criminal system" - but the entire system - and it is STILL the case: judiciary, court staff and other supporting infrastructure ; lawyers. (One year later, my conclusion was endorsed (above)). (No doubt Michael Gove, Lord Chancellor and 'Justice' Secretary, will attribute this to "the creaking, outdated, dysfunctional system").

(2)- "had compromised" - An English 'Establishment' (below) turn of phrase / euphemism. As very amply demonstrated by e.g. my case, those helping the organized crime gangs are very clearly doing it of their own volition. I certainly did not see the judges and police with a gun held to their head to make them do what they did to me - and I am sure that it, likewise, applies to ALL the others involved in my case.

(3)- "at the time" - NO! (my experience e.g. Overview # 13 ; # 15 , # 16 , # 17 , # 18.1). Like the retired officer said (below, article 3 of 4) “Nothing has changed. The Met is still every bit as corrupt as it was back then.”

(4)- How about 'north / north-west London' where e.g. the Ladsky gang is predominantly located?


(3 of 5)- "Revealed: How gangs used the Freemasons to corrupt police", Independent, 10 Jan 14 - by Tom Harper

"Secret networks of Freemasons have been used by organised crime gangs to corrupt the criminal justice system [1] , according to a bombshell Metropolitan Police report leaked to The Independent." (2)

"Operation Tiberius, written in 2002, found underworld syndicates used their contacts in the controversial brotherhood to “recruit corrupted officers” inside Scotland Yard..."

"...Freemasonry has long been suspected of having members who work in the criminal justice system – notably the judiciary and the police." (2)

"The political establishment and much of the media often dismiss such ideas as the work of conspiracy theorists. [3] However, Operation Tiberius is the second secret police report revealed by The Independent in the last six months to highlight the possible issue."

"Project Riverside, a 2008 report on the rogue private investigations industry by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, also claimed criminals attempt to corrupt police officers through Freemason members in a bid to further their interests." (4)

"In England and Wales, the Grand Master of the Freemasons is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. [5] The United Grand Lodge of England declined to comment last night."

(1)- Oh, please! ONLY the corruptible can be corrupted - as I can confirm following my extensive experience with the kangaroo courts.

Taking bribes is part of 'the ethics' of the British Establishment e.g. added to the police, below, the bribes taken by some of the Lords and MPs.

(2)- THANK YOU INDY for adding credence to my claims. (I note that the same term of 'brotherhood' is used, which I was not aware of). The police has its own Masonic lodge.

(3)- Quelle surprise!

(4)- I suspected as much in the light of the cover-up by Lord Justice Leveson (My Diary 2011- (2.1) Phone-hacking). I also repeat: ONLY the corruptible can be corrupted.

(5)- In its 9 Mar 08 article, the Daily Mail had also reported the "Duke of Kent as Grand Master" (Persecution # 6).


(4 of 5)- "Exclusive: Scotland Yard’s rotten core: Police failed to address Met's ‘endemic corruption", Independent, 10 Jan 14 - by Tom Harper

"...syndicates...bribed scores of former and then-serving detectives [1] to access confidential databases; obtain live intelligence on criminal investigations; provide specialist knowledge of surveillance [2], technical deployment and undercover techniques to help evade prosecution; and even take part in criminal acts such as mass drug importation and money laundering."

"The author lamented the Met’s inability to root out the problem. More worryingly, he also appeared to question Scotland Yard’s commitment to tackle organised crime corruption in the ranks." (3)

"Tiberius identified 80 corrupt individuals with links to the police, including 42 then-serving officers and 19 former detectives. Research conducted by The Independent suggests that only a tiny number of the officers named as corrupt have been convicted." (4)

"Keith Vaz, who chairs the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: “I am deeply concerned by the findings of this report. It is vital that the police have the utmost integrity. The public must be able to trust them to do their job and ensure justice prevails." (5)

"He added that he would be writing to the current Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to “ensure that these allegations have been fully investigated and to confirm that he is satisfied that corruption no longer exists.” (6)

"A former senior officer, who recently retired from Scotland Yard, told The Independent: “Nothing has changed. The Met is still every bit as corrupt as it was back then.” (7)

"Asked to comment on the Tiberius report, a spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “The Metropolitan Police Service will not tolerate any behaviour by our officers and staff which could damage the trust placed in police by the public. We are determined to pursue corruption in all its forms and with all possible vigour." (8)

The dedicated Anti-Corruption Command, part of the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards, proactively investigates any allegations or intelligence relating to either corrupt police officers and staff [or] those that may seek to corrupt our officers’ staff. There is no complacency in the Met’s determination to succeed in this task.(9)

(1)- Oh, please! I repeat my Comment # 1, under 3 of 5, above.

(2)- This is STILL happening. I repeat my comments that refer to my case: (i) - below (re. one of the police supplying information to a drug dealer) ; (ii) - below (re. the police supplying "information to an illegal blacklist of construction workers").

(3)- That IS the issue. The police does not take action because it knows from ALL of those who could impose sanctions, that it does not need to e.g. my case. Hence, a large part of 'the Establishment' is complicit - because, like the police (that has its own Masonic lodge), many are Masons.

See also below, Indy's articles about the "police's mass-shredding of evidence" - impacting on, among others, the Stephen Lawrence case.

(4)- TYPICAL! e.g. below: Mr de Menezes; The Cardiff Three; Mr Ian Tomlinson.

(5)- Typical meaningless comment from Keith Vaz (other examples) (who evidently was not "concerned" about what I reported in my letter to Theresa May, on which I copied him).

(6)- No points for guessing his answer - in spite of the ongoing evidence to the contrary e.g. (i)- views from a QC; (ii)- 2012 report by the Inspectorate of Constabulary.

(7)- I totally agree with that - in the light of my experience since my first contact with the police in 2002 (Overview # 13 , # 15 , # 16 , # 17 and # 18.1).

See also below, the Telegraph' article about "police's mass-shredding of evidence"

(8)- Cue to laugh out loud, as the misconduct, including criminal conduct, is endorsed at a high level e.g. my case: my below comments to the reply from a solicitor to Sir Paul Stephenson.

(Note also the comments, 4 years previously, from the then Chair of the IPCC: "let's not wait"; "if we do not deal with [police corruption] now, then in the end, it will just get worse").

Hence: just a soundbite to keep-up the pretence.

(9)- Likewise: cue to laugh out loud - because, as demonstrated in my case (police # 5.3) - the so-called Directorate of 'Professional Standards' does not address misconduct by police officers, including breaches of legislation. The same applies within its units at the local level e.g. Steve McSorley, Kensington police: 22 Sep 09 and 20 Nov 09.

Hence: just more soundbites to keep-up the pretence. ALL in the same class as the claims made by politicians - because ALL part of the same tribe!

(5 of 5)- "Exclusive: 'Police corruption cannot be eliminated' admits head of special Met unit following Independent stories", Independent, 19 Jan 14 - by Tom Harper

"Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron, head of the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Unit...denied the Yard still suffered from the “endemic police corruption” outlined in the leaked report from Operation Tiberius in 2002." (1)

"...the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards has 385 staff and spends £24m annually – around 0.7 per cent of the Met’s total £3.3bn budget." (2)

"[Mr Bonthrom] adds that Sir Bernard [Met Commissioner] has made corruption one of his key priorities at the Met [3] and times have changed dramatically since the 1980s when police officers were allowed to retire on ill-health grounds rather than “face the music”. “There are regulations that we are bound by…" (4)

"He says that 99.9 per cent of this organisation “are honest, law-abiding individuals [5] and find it abhorrent and are absolutely appalled … One officer, one member of staff, headline news … and it discredits the organisation.” (6)

(1)- I repeat my above Comment # 7.

(2)- Includes those at the local level (such as e.g. Steve McSorley in Kensington police: 22 Sep 09 and 20 Nov 09)?

I repeat my above Comment # 8 - and hence describe it as, not only a waste of taxpayers' money, but, crucially, as taxpayers paying individuals to deny them their rights.

(3)- False! I repeat my Comment below: that, in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe continued in the footsteps of his predecessor, Sir Paul Stephenson: from QB # 4(4)).

(4)- Cue to laugh out loud as: Yes, THERE ARE regulations: the Police (Conduct) Regulations ('supported by' Home Office Guidance) - but ALL with the responsibility to ensure their implementation ignore them - in the same they they ignore ALL other legislation.

(5)- So: 0.01% ARE "dishonest" and NOT "law abiding". Assuming a total in the Met of 60,000 (e.g. pg 27 of the 05.09.09 Policing Business Plan) - it makes 6! Contrast that with the number involved in just my case + the others reported on this page! The mantra of "only a few rotten apples", in actual fact translates into: rotten barrels.

(Even if the total Met number is twice that i.e. 120,000 - it still does not tally with what is reported in the media... which is only the tip of the iceberg). Hence, my overall assessment of the claim: typical hoodwinking of the 'Proles' by claiming that there are 'only a few rotten apples'.

Example of another one making this claim, and concurrently taking the public for illiterate morons: Alex Marshall, head of the College of Policing (below). But then, they destroy the evidence to reduce the number - e.g. the absolutely outrageous claim by Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey (below)).

(6)- Clearly, they are not to be found within Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police where there is active endorsement of, and assistance in the gross misconduct.





(BOOK reference on 'The Establishment')

"Masters of cover-up: How the Establishment closes ranks to protect its own and deny the people the truth”, By Stephen Glover, Daily Mail 14 Sep 12

"The sad lesson of Hillsborough [below] is how the Establishmentjudges, police chiefs, civil servants — closes ranks to protect its own and deny the people the truth." (1)

"It has taken 23 long years to establish the shaming truth, which is that senior police officers manipulated evidence to hide police failings while attempting, with great success, to blacken the good name of the innocent people who needlessly perished."

"Evil is a strong word, but some of the things the top brass of South Yorkshire Police are alleged to have done — the doctoring of 116 statements to remove criticisms of the force; the imputation of excessive alcohol consumption where none had taken place — would appear to warrant such a description." (2)

"Hillsborough has been a classic institutional cover-up which has only been brought to our notice because of the heroic persistence of the relatives of those who died. The Establishment mindset — to hide wrong-doing and ineptitude and never say sorry until it is too late — has not altered." (1)

"Of course, there are many brave and conscientious police officers. It’s their bosses I worry about — people like the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, who tried to block an independent inquiry into the shooting in cold blood by one of his officers of the young Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005" (3) (NB: see also, below, Paul Stephenson)

"Most of all, we have been disheartened by the lies and evasions of government. I believe that Tony Blair manipulated the evidence in taking this country to war against Iraq... His response to the growing case against him was a classic Establishment ruse — to appoint a friendly judge, in this instance Lord Hutton, and give him a narrow brief.

Nine times out of ten a judge-led inquiry will obligingly come up with findings which suit the government of the day..."

"The repeated failures of judge-led inquiries implicate the judiciary in the secretiveness that disfigures so many of our institutions"... "Hillsborough itself offers further proof of the inadequacy of judge-led inquiries...

In fact, it has taken the independent panel, chaired not by a judge but by the Bishop of get at the truth of what really happened. Among the nine members on the panel there wasn’t a single judge and only one lawyer."

"There is a sense in which politicians, the police and the civil service still regard us almost as serfs (4) with limited rights" (4)

(NB: Mr Glover also refers to, among others, the expenses scandal: Lords and MPs).

(1)- See: (1)- the comments from a Guest Contributor to The Sunday Times: Overview # 20; (2)- the below comments from a Daily Telegraph journalist / Guest Contributor; (3)- other outcomes of judge-led inquiries; (4)- as evidenced from the Overview, I have faced that repeatedly, as soon as I 'dared' to challenge the institutions.

(2)- The 'Ministry of Truth' approach, and their use of 'Newspeak', is consistent with their living in an Orwellian world. In Orwell's 1984, the Party's slogan was: 'Proles and animals are free' (Pt 1, Chpt 7).

(3)- Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, below, his family's conclusion of "a whitewash"; Whistleblowers page for the Canadian Lady who revealed what actually took place, and how she was hounded mercilessly by the police and locked-up in a police cell.

(4)- I share this view as well, but remove the "almost" - and add: like a 1000 years ago, as we, 'the little people', 'the Proles', ARE treated by (using the euphemism), 'the Establishment', as well as by its lackeys, like pieces dirt, non-entities who do not have the right to have rights, there to be used and abused - at will - by them...

- especially when it concerns leaseholders: we are treated - by ALL - as the lowest form of life on earth: e.g. Home Overview # 7 , # 19 - in order to satisfy their GREED.

The more they dish out the abuse and torment, the more they expect 'the Proles' to lick their jackboots, 'in gratitude' for the oppressive treatment. Further, they also expect us to behave like schizophrenics: turning the moral tap on/off to suit their needs.

1000 years ago, the punishment for the serfs 'daring' to stand-up to 'the Establishment' of the day, barons, etc., was death: through hanging; being buried alive with their head above ground, so that... well, you can imagine, etc. (*)

1000 years later, in the 21st century, for 'daring' to stand-up to the Establishment for our 'rights', we are also 'buried alive, with our head above the ground'.

Based on my experience: those who lead the charge, are corrupt members of the police and judiciary, followed by others (e.g. below examples) - through their ongoing psychological warfare; destroying our life; turning us into destitute, criminalized pariahs, ostracized by all e.g.

Whistleblowers ; Victims Unite (copy of comments received on the site, at 2010) ; Stop the Oppression of the British People ; Summary of my case.

In his excellent 28 Jan 13 article, in the Guardian, headed: "When the rich are born to rule, the results can be fatal", George Monbiot concludes with: "Many of those who govern us...belong to a different culture, a different world, which knows as little of its own acts as it knows of those who suffer them". (I disagree with his use of the word "elite" in the article).

Hillsborough, Stafford hospital, Winterbourne View, Ash Court, Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Rotherham, etc.: the fact that: (1)- they try to cover their actions / lack of action - including, to prevent exposure: gagging individuals; deleting the evidence e.g. (in addition to ):above: Morecambe Bay NHS Trust;...

... (2)- that NONE of the senior people are held accountable;

...(3)- the endless 'Newspeak' platitudes (one of the favourite ones:

(Another favourite one is "Not in the public interest")...

...- as though the institutions had only been set-up in recent months / they 'just discovered' - in a hospital - that 'the little people' need water and food to survive, etc.)...

...- scream out one thing: THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN! or, as a visitor to my website wrote colloquially: "They don't give a crap".

In fact, on 18 Jun 15, the epitome of the British Establishment (book ref.), Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime summed up succinctly the Establishment's perception of 'the little people', in his reply to a taxi driver: "FUCK OFF AND DIE!" (source: The Guardian).

I repeat the Party's slogan in Orwell's 1984: 'Proles and animals are free' - and cite other below examples: (1)- protecting high profile individuals who abused children;

(2) stealing the identity of dead children; (3)- forming intimate relationships with women, and having children, solely for the purpose of gathering intelligence on protest groups, etc.).

(*) For the benefit of those who will go on the defensive and say: it was also taking place in e.g. France, my country of birth: YES, it was. As I have stated on a number of occasions on this site: 2 or more wrongs do not make a right - and will never make a right.

Back to list



"I was turned into a pariah for complaining about a yob", Daily Mail, 8 Oct 10

"In Aug 05, a former care worker saw it as her public duty to report a drunk she saw trampling flowers in a park. The man had fled by the time police arrived, but they advised her to contact the council, which was running a campaign to persuade local people to report anti-social behaviour".

"Her efforts led to a surreal nightmare in which she was branded potentially violent and put on a council blacklist with thugs and sex attackers Their staff were advised not to see her alone".

"Her name was added to the blacklist because she was 'a thorn in their side' and the council thought the move would mean no-one would take her seriously"

"After a bitter four-year legal battle with Slough Council, the stain on her character has finally been removed. The High Court ordered the council to pay her £12,000 in libel damages. The case has cost taxpayers an estimated £500,000 in legal fees".

The woman is reported as saying: "What is terrifying is that there is almost no proof required and no hearing to determine the truth of the allegation. It could happen to anybody who gets into even the most minor disagreement with their council".

THE BLACKLIST - Slough council sent an alert about [the woman] to:

  • Fire, police and ambulance services
  • GPs, dentists, opticians, National Health
  • Contraception and stop smoking clinics
  • Alcohol counselling services
  • Electoral registrars
  • Citizens Advice Bureau
  • Career advice services
  • Town centre Business Initiative - 50 of Slough's largest companies
  • Libraries
  • Schools, nurseries and playgroups
  • Dustbin men

Human rights watchdog, Privacy International, is quoted as saying:

"This just shows the megalomania of these local authorities. This poor woman was subjected to a Kafkaesque ordeal because of an incorrect allegation made by one official. It is the sort of behaviour that we would have condemned if it came from China or Russia" (*) "Our councils seem to be out of control".

(In its 1428 issue, 30 Sep-13 Oct 16, Private Eye reported:

"Slough on the uptakeSlough borough council appears on the verge of meltdown under the autocratic rule of leader Sohail Munawar…the Labour councillor, tax fraudster and seller of booze to minors...")

(*) Very true e.g. David Cameron in Jan 12 re. breaches of Human Rights "by other countries".

(NB: I also 'dared' to challenge my local council, its 'regulator',... as well as many, many others - resulting in the 'Thought Police' and its 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984) 'getting on my case', by also turning me into 'a pariah' - as well as inflicting / ensuring the dishing out of numerous other forms of criminal psychological harassment and persecution).

Another example: that of Maurice Kirk, who 'dares' to stand-up to 'the authorities', comprising of police, etc. - leading the 'Thought Police' to categorize him as a 'terrorist', to justify applying MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement - level 3 surveillance).

See also examples:

  • Treatment of whistleblowers by various state departments - including:
  • Mr Osita Mba who was hunted by HM Revenue & Customs under anti-terrorism legislation (as in my case) for 'daring' to report on a secret multi-million £s "sweetheart" tax deal HMRC made with Goldman Sachs;
  • the protracted and inhumane victimization of Dr Raj Mattu, in relation to which University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) is reported "to have already spent £6m pursuing this vendetta.";
  • typically - branding the whistleblowers as 'suffering from mental issues' e.g.

(NB: Other reports on councils:

  • (2) abuse of surveillance legislation:

(Indicative of the state of the local councils: in each of its issues, Private Eye has a full page, headed 'Rotten boroughs'; I am sure it could easily quadruple the number pages - in each of its issues).

YEP! That's how the British state translates Winston Churchill's belief (it claims to uphold) - that: "the State should be the servant, not the master of its people" (My Diary 25 Jan 12).

(He was right, but, for some years now, the ever growing abuse of power by the British state has been relying on the fact that many of "its people" fail to grasp that - through the payment of taxes - they are the employers of individuals in the state. In other words: these individuals are entirely dependent on 'the little people' for their existence).

Back to list



While my case demonstrates that the British state has no qualms holding - deliberately - false criminal charges against me, the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime - who has done nothing wrong...

...- the following (and these other examples) demonstrate that it has a high propensity to criminalize 'the little people', 'the Proles' i.e. the vulnerable / those it assesses as being unable to fight back. (*)

In particular, the examples demonstrate further the blatant abuse of power by the state - and how sick 'the Establishment' has become. Not only has it "lost the plot" (My Diary # 2.5) - it has gone totally round the bend.

(*) Meanwhile, the British state actively assists and protects multi-criminals like Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - as also exemplified by the fact that it, e.g. dished out prison sentences of up to 32 months to some individuals for committing similar crimes - on a much smaller scale.

And, of course, in the name of 'the God of Money', does the same thing for others e.g. the then Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) (get ready for that): that classified the criminality of big businesses as "secret", and did not act on it "to protect the “financial viability of major organisations by tainting them with public association with criminality."

Only in this country! Note also the judge being complicit in excluding this evidence (among other) from his inquiry.

"James Best: Jailed in the riots for stealing a gingerbread man... dead in the prison that should have protected him", Independent, 1 Apr 13 ;

"Inquest to open into death of prisoner convicted of stealing gingerbread man", The Guardian, 17 Mar 13

Mr Best was "imprisoned in Her Majesty's Wandsworth Prison, one of Britain's most dangerous prisons, for stealing a gingerbread man from a bakery that had been looted during the August 2011 riots". (1)

He was reported to have had "a history of mental health problems", as well as suffering from "a number of health problems: high blood pressure, asthma", etc.

While said to have "died from natural causes", "the inquest heard that Mr Best was failed by the system" (2)

"Inspectors visiting Wandsworth prison in 2011 were scathing about its safety record. There were 11 deaths in custody between January 2010 and March 2011 and “typically, there were about 32 incidents of self-harm each month”.

"They also saw “frequently indifferent and sometimes abusive staff interactions with prisoners”. (2) "They admonished management at Wandsworth and Pentonville for colluding during inspections to move difficult prisoners, hiding them in the system." (2)

"The inspectors wrote: “The treatment and conditions of too many prisoners at Wandsworth was demeaning, unsafe and fell below what could be classed as decent" (2)

"A Prison Service spokesman said: "We will consider the inquest findings to see what lessons can be learned" (3)


Why did this poor man end-up being put in jail by Her Majesty's police and judiciary "for stealing a gingerbread man from a bakery that had been looted "?

"Riots: magistrates advised to 'disregard normal sentencing", Guardian, 15 Aug 11

"Last week David Cameron told the recalled House of Commons that anyone involved in violent disorder should expect to go to prison" (4)

"Cases which usually would be dealt with by magistrates courts could now be referred to crown court for tougher sentences".

"...a mother of two, was jailed for five months for receiving a pair of shorts given to her after they had been looted from a city centre store". "...a 23-year-old student was jailed for six months for stealing £3.50 worth of water bottles from a supermarket." (4)

(1) I repeat my above comment.

(2) = merely copying the conduct of those above them ('Establishment' ; Overview # 7 , # 19). (Quoting from Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP in his Mail on Sunday article of 24 Jan 10: “If you lay down the tracks, that’s the way the train goes” )

(3) The 'Newspeak' public sector favourite (other examples: "Lessons have been learnt" (Durham Constabulary re. Mr McCourt), "the Government will learn the lessons" (David Cameron re. Stafford hospital)

(4) (In addition to repeating my above comment) - Mr Cameron: why are those responsible for the mass-murder of 1,200 people, not in prison - with multiple life sentences? And you claim that "Britain has a well regarded legal system"!?!?!


Police charge ‘suicide’ man who delayed the trains for four hours”, Mail on Sunday, 23 Aug 09.

Having been persuaded to not jump from the bridge, the man was subsequently locked-up in a police cell and taken to court to face prosecution for "causing financial loss".

(NB: = A major offence against the 'God of Money'!)


"Grandfather arrested at dawn and held in police cell for SIX hours for swearing once at council official", Daily Mail, 11 Nov 09.

"His arrest followed a dispute with a council official about "dangerously slippery" communal stairs in his block of flats".

"When an official visiting the site prevented him from listening to a phone call to his supervisor, he lost his temper and said: "Don't you tell me what I can and can't do in my own ****ing place".

"The official complained of feeling "threatened", and six days later, the grandfather was arrested at 5.35 a.m. on suspicion of "causing harassment, alarm or distress in a public place" (*).

"He had his fingerprints and DNA taken, before being issued with an £80 fixed-penalty notice".

(*) My assessment, on the basis of the evidence: (1)- the man did NOT "swear at the official" ; (2)- if he wants to call "his place", "****ing", that's his right, and it cannot be construed in anyway as being "a threat" to others.

Hence, he was arrested because the 'almighty', power-crazed official did not like being told by the man that he "could not tell him what he could and could not do in his own place" and, his 'tribe' members, the police, agreed that such 'an affront' should not go unpunished.


"Father fined for overfilling bin", BBC, 22 Apr 08

"[A man] who refused to pay a £110 on-the-spot fine for 'illegally' over filling his dustbin by 4 inches was taken to court where he was ordered to pay £235."

Apparently, "[he was] threatened with prison if he failed to pay", and ended-up with "a criminal record" (*)

In its Comment section, the Daily Mail wrote "Meanwhile, violent offenders escape with a caution, and shoplifters with a simple £80 fixed-penalty notice". (*) " What price common sense?"

(*) I also repeat my above comment.


"Apple core lands man in jail", Guardian, 9 May 08

"A man spent a night in a police cell after being arrested for dropping an apple core."

"A police community support officer [1]attempted to issue [the man] with a £50 fixed penalty notice, but he refused to give his name and address."

"The officer called for help from a police officer who arrested [the man] and took him to Swinton police station, Greater Manchester police [2]where he was held in custody until he appeared the following day in court". At the 2nd court hearing [!!!]“both charges were dismissed”.

(1) Another one of 'those'! (See police: # 3(2)(8) , # 4)

(2) That notorious police force e.g. the case of John Buttress and Mo Razaq.


"A criminal record for forgetting to pay 90p (£0.90) Oyster fare", Evening Standard, 11 Aug 08

"A woman, a Danish national, received a criminal record for forgetting to swipe her bus fare card – on which she had credit."

She forgot because "she was concentrating on getting her two-week old daughter and baby buggy safely on board."

While she explained the reason for her oversight, "and offered to pay the £20 fine, the inspector, accompanied by a police officer, made her leave the bus and demanded her details."

Following receiving a letter from London Bus Services ‘offering [her]’ the chance to plead guilty to avoid appearing”, which she did not take up, as my only ‘crime’ was forgetfulness”, she found herself in court. The magistrate found her “guilty but reduced the penalty to £50.

She was told that her “criminal record would be deleted after six monthsbut despite this it will always be flagged up when checks are made, especially when she begins applying for a job as a teacher.

The woman is also reported as saying “ My family in Denmark are stunned by the whole thing. They never heard of anything so ridiculous as getting a criminal record for a bus ticket (*)

(*) My reply to this woman: imagine the reaction of my family and friends in France to what has been happening to me in this country since 2002! “Stunned” does not begin to express it.


"Archbishop's PA dragged through courts and branded fare dodger for 20p bus fare slip-up", Daily Mail, 2 May 08


"Pensioner jailed for recording court proceedings is released", Guardian, 9 Sep 11

"An 85-year-old man, a decorated Royal Navy veteran, who was jailed for six months for recording court proceedings was freed by the court of appeal." (*)

"Three judges quashed the sentence imposed on Norman Scarth in July for contempt of court and substituted one of 12 weeks, resulting in his immediate release." (*)

(*) Under current rule, what he is alleged to have done, amounts to contempt of court.

My question: how come that this man ends-up in prison, "for contempt of court", for allegedly recording court proceedings - and that no sanction of any kind have been taken against:

  • (2)- to 3 courts, starting with their claims against me (and fellow leaseholders) and supporting documents, and in their applications (Overview # 3 , # 5 , # 11 ; CKFT # 6.6)?

Further: what does lying by the judiciary with the objective of assisting and protecting a crook and those in the state sector who help him (Overview # 18(2) ; QB # 4(6)) amount to?

Contempt of the law? I certainly view it as contempt of the court system by "acting like pimps, prostituting it for the benefit of crooks" - as I wrote on pg 19, lines 3 & 4, of my 02.02.10 letter to the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson -

How can we, 'the little people', have respect for this kind of set-up? Demonstrating how much "they have lost the plot", is that the Establishment (judiciary, police, etc.) nonetheless expect us to show it 'respect'.

Meanwhile, David Cameron claims that this country "has a long and exemplary record on human rights", and "a well regarded legal system". Talk of being delusional...or, of hoodwinking the ignorants!

Back to list



(See also:




"CPS cops out", Private Eye, 1377, 17-30 Oct 14, pg 31

"Prosecutors are to be challenged over their controversial decision last week not to bring charges of perjury or preventing the course of justice against two police officers whose testimony at an inquest into the death of a man in custody was contradicted by CCTV footage."

"PC Mark Harratt and Sgt Paul White were both arrested after they were found to have given misleading evidence about the arrest and detention in Brixton police station of mentally ill musician Sean Rigg who died after being restrained by four police officers in 2008."

"The jury had been faced with many discrepancies in police evidence. Officers were contradicted by each other…and, crucially, by CCTV footage, photographs, police logs, calls and radio transcripts."

"In a written explanation for its decision not to press charges the Crown Prosecution Service said it would have to prove that the pair were deliberately lying, rather than simply being mistaken." (1)

[As to] the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), its first investigation exonerated officers of any wrongdoings but was subsequently found to have been thoroughly flawed." (2)

"Because of the damning findings by the inquest jury, it carried out a second investigation into allegations of gross misconduct against Harratt, White and three other officers involved in the fatal encounter."

"Last month, high court Mrs Justice Lang [3] denied an application by PC Andrew Birks, one of the most senior officer involved in Mr Rigg’s arrest, to be allowed to resign from the police ahead of any decisions on disciplinary action."

(1)- I wonder whether it is also Director of Public Prosecution Alison Saunders' 'view' in my case, of the conduct by the police in Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill - my 24.07.16 letter to her, and 'her' 28.07.16 'reply' (includes my Comments). (My Diary 24 July 16)

(2)- Surprise, surprise! The IPCC also exonerating the police! (Many examples on this page, and on the police page - added to my case, where it illegally did this through collusion and lies: police # 5.4 ; Queen's Bench # 5)

(3)- An improvement for Justice Lang...or is it the case that she is on auto-pilot for automatically rejecting applications?: 'her' 06.10.11 Order against me - Queen's Bench # 4.7(2).

"Case is rigged?", Private Eye, 1428, 30 Sep-13 Oct 16, pg 40

"Lawyers acting for the family of Sean Rigg are questioning the Metropolitan Police’s ability to consider objectively disciplinary proceedings against the officers involved.

"Their complaint follows a statement by the police which “welcomed” the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to bring criminal charges against five officers."

"Last week the CPS said there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” of any of the officers involved in Mr Rigg’s arrest, restraint and detention at Brixton police station.”

"As it now stands, only of the officers involved in the event that night, custody sergeant Paul White, is facing trial for alleged perjury relating to evidence at the 2012 inquest."

Daniel Machover, solicitor acting for the family told the Eye: “The impression of bias in favour of the officers has alarmed the family and undermined their confidence in the fairness of any future disciplinary decisions made by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service”]

"White out", Private Eye, Private Eye, 1432, 25 Nov-8 Dec 16, pg 40

"Custody sergeant Paul White...has been cleared of perjury and is back on restricted police duties".

"..the jury...cleared White of deliberately giving false evidence after he told them he had made an inexplicable mistake, and had been "completely shell-shocked" when he saw the CCTV footage..."

"...he had absolutely no idea how he came to be so confused about events,..."

The Eye concludes with: "Following the extraordinary admission that Paul White can't really account for his 'mistaken' evidence, it must be a matter of public concern that he is back on police duty,..."

Back to list



In the case of rendition victims Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sarni al-Saadi:

"Ml6 gets off scot-free over rendition of suspected Islamists to Libya", The Guardian, 9 June 16

Following the Libyan revolution, a March 2004 letter from Mark Allen [now a 'Sir'], who was then "head of Ml6 counter-terrorism operations, to Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's intelligence chief, was found among documents in Moussa's office destroyed by Nato bombs.".

"In it, Allen trumpeted Ml6's role in the operation"

"Libya renditions should put UK spies firmly under the spotlight", The Guardian, 21 jun 16 - An article by Cori Crider who "heads the abuses-in-counterterrorism team at Reprieve..."

"...the Crown Prosecution Service said [*] that a 28,000-page dossier from the police is “insufficient evidence” to charge the British official most involved – MI6’s former director of counterterrorism, Sir Mark Allen."

"While my clients were being tortured in Libya, Allen moved from MI6 to oil firm BP, which went on to win lucrative contracts after Tony Blair’s deal in the desert with Gaddafi."

(*) "CPS says there is insufficient evidence to charge Sir Mark Allen over 2004 abduction of former dissidents and families", The Guardian, 9 Jun 16.

[Note that 'the CPS' considers the above letter "insufficient evidence" !!!]

(More detail under Rifkind - Notes 3(A))

= A typical outcome for the CPS: protecting its tribe members! The institutional automatic closing of ranks.




"Cartoon Capers", Private Eye, 1425, 19Aug - 1 Sep 16, pg 7

"The anti-arms protesters who blocked entry to last September’s DSEI arms fair in London and were arrested, were acquitted in April after arguing in court that greater crimes were going on inside the arms sale show."

"The judge agreed, saying there was “clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence from expert witnesses of wrongdoings at DSEI and compelling evidence that it took place”."

"Despite this, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), determined not to give up without a fight [*], has repeated its application to state a case. Given the correspondence from the judge to the CPS, it faces an uphill struggle."

"In response to its appeal, the judge stated that “unless and until the CPS prepares its application on the basis of what was actually said in my judgment (rather than something they appear to imagine was said) I am simply not prepared to implicitly condone such poor preparation by stating a case on the current application” Ouch!"

(*) In the same league as e.g. Theresa May when she headed the Home Office where she automatically challenged appeal applications - at very great costs to the taxpayers: Home Office # 3.

Back to list



(Source of expression: "fantastically corrupt")

(See also Whistleblowers page- UK Police)


HILLSBOROUGH - Cover-up by police, judiciary, etc.

Refers to 96 fans being crushed to death at a football match, in 1989.

"Named, blamed and shamed: The police chiefs who caused tragedy, smeared dead fans and fabricated evidence as families call for them to be prosecuted", Daily Mail, 12 Sep 12 - and its above article, of 14 Sep 12.

"An inquiry led by Lord Chief Justice Taylor found the main cause of the disaster was a failure in crowd control by South Yorkshire Police.

But [at] a subsequent inquest,...the coroner refused to accept any evidence about what happened after an arbitrary cut-off point of 3.15pm – just nine minutes after the match was stopped when it became apparent a tragedy was unfolding."

"A panel of independent experts was given access to all 450,000 official documents", and published its findings on 12 Sep 12 e.g.

  • "as many as 41 of those who died could have survived with proper emergency response";
  • "South Yorkshire Police doctored statements by 164 officers – 116 of them to remove statements critical of the force";
  • "in an attempt to deflect the blame onto the fans, ambulance staff also changed their statements, and police took blood-alcohol samples from the dead and injured, including children, as well as carried out criminal record checks" (NB: thereby attempting to smear the dead).

"The families of dead fans, who have campaigned tirelessly for justice, said the report had vindicated them but pledged to carry on their fight by pursuing criminal prosecutions against those who they said should 'hang their heads in shame.'"

Comment from a Reader: "The authorities will string this out another few years. By then, most of the senior culprits will have died. Their gold-plated pensions would have been drawn to the last penny.

This is the problem when justice is delayed, the perpetrators are either dead, or so old in this case as not to be given the lengthy sentence they deserve, no doubt due to a catalogue of alleged illnesses that will conveniently come out" (*)

(*) I agree with all of it, including the excuse about illness e.g. Margaret Moran.

(See below how the police, 10 days later, had the nerve to exploit being, allegedly, called "plebs")


"Hillsborough: watchdog believes 55 more police statements were altered", Guardian, 12 July 13


"Hillsborough: police, FA, council and club could face manslaughter charges", Guardian, 12 Sep 13

"...the Independent Police Complaints Commission said that it had uncovered evidence that 238 police statements had been altered - 74 more than previously believed."


"Hillsborough: 'absolutely essential' that police are prosecuted", Telegraph, 13 Sep 12

"David Cameron said the bereaved had suffered a "double injustice" as the state failed to protect their loved ones then they were accused of causing the tragedy."


"Theresa May says police should be tried over Hillsborough", Independent, 18 Sep 12

"Theresa May stated that she was "absolutely clear that those who have broken the law should be pursued and, if the evidence is sufficient, prosecuted"..."

"She confirmed that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been asked "to identify whether there are any other matters relating to any of the officers serving in South Yorkshire Police at the time that should be referred for investigation".

(NB: Does this mean that Theresa May will finally adopt the same position in my case?

My experience with her: QB # 6 , and with the IPCC: QB # 5 , the police: # 5.4 , QB # 4))


"Sir Norman Bettison 'right' to retire amid investigations into his role following the Hillsborough disaster, says police authority chairman", Independent, 5 Oct 12

"West Yorkshire chief constable Sir Norman Bettison's plan to retire amid continuing investigations into his role following the Hillsborough disaster is the "right decision", his police authority chairman has said.

The IPCC is investigating a complaint that Sir Norman supplied misleading information after the disaster."

"The Chairwoman of the Hillsborough Families Support Group said: "Obviously I'm very pleased. I'm absolutely delighted that he's going. But then he'll go on his full pension, and I'd like to know the full reasons why he's choosing to retire as soon as this".

"[A woman] whose 18-year old son died in the tragedy said: "Why didn't he stay until the IPCC came out with their investigation?...I am thrilled that he is going, but if he's got nothing to hide, why is he retiring? The man has got something to worry about"".

Another is reported as saying: "I don't think he would have retired if it wasn't for the Hillsborough report"" (See also, below)


"High court quashes Hillsborough inquest verdicts", The Guardian, 19 Dec 12

"Ruling clears way for fresh inquest into 96 deaths, re-examining roles of police, other emergency services, council and Sheffield Wednesday" (1)...

...and 3 months later:


"Hillsborough families have to wait two more years for investigations to be concluded", Independent, 31 Mar 13

"Anger over delays that will see bereaved families have to wait more than two years for investigations into Hillsborough to be concluded..." "The criminal investigation is set to take even longer." (2)

"Campaigners are also angered by the former Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Sir Norman Bettison [above], escaping punishment... over allegations he tried to manipulate the way complaints about his involvement with Hillsborough were handled.

But by resigning late last year, he placed himself beyond the reach of any sanctions it could have imposed." (3)

Sheila Coleman, spokeswoman for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign, is quoted as saying: "With the length its taking, one of the biggest concerns is that more people will die waiting for things to happen and that blame will be placed on officers where there can be no consequences – dead officers, officers that have resigned or retired already(4)

(1) 23 years of fighting to get to this point! Does such a legal system deserve to be - 'apparently' - "a well regarded legal system"?

(2) A TYPICAL tactic e.g. the Chilcot inquiry, charged by the ex. PM Gordon Brown, in 2009, with looking into the Iraq war. To my knowledge, it has yet to issue its report. Of note: at the time, Gordon Brown was reported as saying that the inquiry had "a ban on apportioning blame". (Regardless of the colour of the administration, getting away scot-free is the top priority (above, 'the Establishment'))

(3) Only in this country! But if it was one of 'the little people'... Contrast what Norman Bettison has been allowed to do, with Theresa May's Feb 13 'measures' (below)

(4) That's the standard game plan! - as accurately summed-up by e.g. the above, Daily Mail Reader.


"Hillsborough disaster police officers to refuse to give evidence to inquest", Guardian, 25 Apr 13

"Lawyers for the three most senior surviving officers in command that day, and the Police Federation representing lower-ranked officers, said the inquest should be delayed for years until any possible criminal proceedings have been concluded".

"Paul Greaney QC, for the Police Federation said "officers under investigation for possible criminal misconduct would exercise their right not to answer questions, to avoid the risk of incriminating themselves."

"From the rows of bereaved Hillsborough family members in the large courtroom on High Holborn in London, there were audible gasps, and one said, quite loudly: "Outrageous."

It certainly IS "outrageous". What these poor people are going far, for more than 20 years!

(See below, Private Eye reporting, in Jan 14, that "the Met refused to say whether Special Branch spied on Hillsborough justice campaigners")


"Jury rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed", Guardian, 26 Apr 16


It 'only' took a quarter of a century for the families of the victims to get to this verdict.

As many were reported to have said: the next step is "accountability".

Back to list



Mr Jean Charles de Menezes is the 27-year old, innocent Brazilian man who, on 22 July 05, was shot seven times in the head by two police officers after he boarded an underground train at Stockwell Tube station (London).

The media reported that the shooting was "preceded by a catalogue of operational blunders". [Two weeks earlier, some men had detonated devices on London's transport system killing 52 people].

See Whistleblowers page, the Canadian Lady who was persecuted for leaking documents to the media proving a cover-up by the police.

"Police to face lesser charges over Menezes", The Independent (?), 12 July 06; "Jean Charles de Menezes: family lose fight for police officers to be prosecuted", The Guardian, 30 Mar 16 - and other media

"The inquiry into the shooting, carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is understood to have accused the Met of organisational failure, particularly in the areas of surveillance and communications."

"Crown Prosecution Service lawyers...have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of convicting those involved....the two firearms officers who shot the Brazilian, or their surveillance team, or commanding officers

[including "Commander Cressida Dick who was in overall charge of the operation; Sir Ian Blair, Met Commissioner"]"

"In 2007, the IPCC said that no disciplinary action should be pursued against any of the frontline and surveillance officers since there was no realistic prospect of any disciplinary charges being upheld."

"At an inquest In 2008, after rejecting the official account of the shooting, the jury returned an open verdict after the coroner had excluded unlawful killing from the range of possible verdicts."

[Outcome:] "no officer can be held accountable for his death." "Calling the inquest 'a whitewash', Mr de Menezes' family walked out of the court in protest."

The police officer who, during the inquest, admitted tampering with the evidence was cleared of wrongdoing by the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

'It' [the IPCC is staffed by police officers on secondment] concluded that he had "acted naively, but found no evidence of deliberate deception" (Daily Mail, 26 May 09).

"The family also pursued a civil action..."

"The Met was subsequently convicted of health and safety failures at the Old Bailey, fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 costs."

"The final insult: How family of innocent Brazilian shot dead on Tube will get just a fraction of £400k pay-off for blundering Met boss Blair" (Daily Mail, 23 Nov 09)

"Jean Charles de Menezes arguments heard in Strasbourg", The Guardian, 10 Jun 15

"...lawyers for Mr de Menezes's family have taken their campaign for justice and accountability to Strasbourg."

"A spokesman for Inquest, a charity that provides advice on contentious deaths in England and Wales, said that the failure to bring criminal prosecutions against police officers responsible for the shooting raises questions about how the state and its agents are held to account for killing its citizens."

"Since 1990, the organisation points out, there have been nine unlawful killing verdicts at inquests into deaths involving the police and one unlawful killing finding recorded by a public inquiry. None have yet resulted in a successful prosecution."

"Over the same period, Inquest said, there have been 995 deaths in police custody or following police contact in England and Wales and 55 fatal shootings by police officers."

"Jean Charles de Menezes: family lose fight for police officers to be prosecuted", The Guardian, 30 Mar 16

"His family condemned the judgment for allowing police to avoid accountability."

The decision not to prosecute any individual officer was not due to any failings in the investigation or the state’s tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts,” the court declared."

Rather, it was due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation, a prosecutor had considered all the facts of the case and concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute.”

"The ruling did not surprise commentators and follows changes adopted by Strasbourg, with UK support, which have effectively enlarged each country’s margin of appreciation in cases." (1)

" Had the ECHR ruled the other way, it would have created a fresh crisis in UK government relations with European human rights judges." (1)

"Deborah Coles, director of the charity Inquest, said: “The experience of the De Menezes family and their long pursuit of justice exemplifies all that is wrong with the investigation process which follows a death involving police use of force."

[She continued] “This disappointing ruling will further undermine confidence of bereaved families in the processes for holding police to account."

[And said] "At its core are concerns that the rule of law does not apply to the police for abuses of power in the same way as it does to an ordinary citizen and that they are able to avoid scrutiny and accountability." (2)

[As well as] "This serves only to create a culture of impunity which frustrates the prevention of abuses of power, ill treatment and misconduct.(2)

(1)- Considering also my experience, I have come to the conclusion that, at the international level, there is also institutional closing of rank: My Diary 4 of 5 of 24 July 16.

(2)- Very true!

To the other examples reported on this page, and the below comments from e.g. (1)- Mr John Bromley-Davenport QC; (2)- Mr Michael Mansfield QC; (3)- Ms/Mrs Fiona Murphy solicitor,...

I add my case: police and security services' breaches of my so-called 'rights', as well as criminal conduct against me: (1)- B-Breaches of the law by Kensington & Chelsea police; (2)- ongoing hounding and persecution - unequivocally endorsed by:

Leaving the police and security services with carte blanche to continue making my life a living hell:


THE CARDIFF THREE - "Justice denied"


"An injustice that won't go away", Independent, 12 Aug 12

Article linked with the 13 Aug 12, BBC's Panorama programme, "Justice Denied: The Greatest Scandal?", produced and directed by Toby Sculthorp.

"A 1988 murder of a Cardiff prostitute, led to the conviction of three innocent men"... The crown's evidence was heavily dependent on the alleged confession... and alleged corroborating evidence of...[some named individuals]".

"A media campaign followed, and on 10 December 1992, the Court of Appeal quashed the Cardiff Three's convictions, and they walked free.

It transpired that [one of the Defendants] had been mercilessly interviewed, shouted at and bullied by detectives during 19 sessions of questioning.

He had denied involvement on 307 occasions, but eventually broke down under the remorseless pressure and "confessed", incriminating himself and the others."

"...advances in DNA profiling and continued media pressure led to a thorough and efficient re-investigation of the murder and the arrest of... a security guard [who] was sentenced to life imprisonment in July 2003".

"This clearly left the South Wales Police and the CPS with a dilemma. How had their collection of evidence and witnesses against five wholly innocent men come about? What had led to the flaky prosecution and just how many witnesses and detectives may have lied on oath to secure the convictions?"

"...the IPCC, which was charged with allocating the inquiry, promptly invited South Wales Police to investigate itself..." (1)

"In February 2007, three of the witnesses admitted lying under oath, but somewhat revealingly the judge told them: "You were seriously hounded, bullied, threatened and abused and manipulated by the police during a period of several months … as a result you felt compelled to agree to false accounts suggested to you."

They were each sentenced to 18 months." (2)

"The three witnesses and the five innocent men had one thing in common: they were humble people, they lived on the edge of the law as minor criminals, and were vulnerable to any intimidation by the police."

"An investigation by a South Wales Police's Detective Chief Superintendent eventually led to the arrest in March 2009 of 13 former police officers and two civilians... All were variously charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or perjury. All pleaded not guilty."

"What happened next strains belief". "The trial in December last year was stopped because documents that should have been disclosed to the defence were said to "have been destroyed".

Because of this, "The judge ended the trial there and then with formal verdicts of not guilty."

"The newly exonerated police officers left court punching the air. A few weeks later, the missing documents turned up." [NB:!!!]

"Cock-up or conspiracy? I am inclined heavily to the former. This was one more demeaning episode in a 25-year-old scandal that just keeps on giving, and taking.

Current cost to the taxpayer: somewhere around £30m. The IPCC has been busily investigating South Wales Police and itself for a report on its role in the myriad cock-ups, which it will publish next month. I understand the words "honest mistakes" will figure in the document".

"The CPS is undergoing independent investigation. If the 13 accused Cardiff detectives had been found guilty, presumably all their previous cases – hundreds – would have had to be reopened and re-examined. Instead, they are now considering suing the South Wales Police". (NB:!!!)

Earlier on in the article, it states: "Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the powerful home affairs committee, [3] says simply: "If this case had been written as a work of fiction, people would not believe it.""

(1) The IPCC is staffed by police officers on secondment.

(2) And this country is - apparently - held as having "a well regarded legal system"!?!?

(3) Officially, the committee might have the power but, it implements its guarding role by 'barking' ONLY once the villains have been exposed by the media.

Then, its chairman, Keith Vaz / speech writers prepare a quote for the media that sounds 'ever-so-good' and: Job done boys! (other examples).


"Cardiff Three police corruption case collapsed 'due to disclosure failures'", Guardian, 16 July 13

"Reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission and HM Crown Prosecution Inspectorate (HMCPSI), released on Tuesday, reveal the failure of police and prosecution to control files.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it accepted that "some elements of disclosure were not adequately managed from the outset, leading to the prosecution team of police and prosecutors being overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of the disclosure exercise." (1)

The director of public prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer QC, added: "In the most difficult cases, prosecutions will stand or fall on the quality of disclosure, and failings can leave the court with no choice but to acquit defendants who have a case to answer." (2)

John Actie, another of the Cardiff Three, said: "It seems that it is impossible for people like me to get true justice against the police where they have seriously abused their power and devastated people's lives. These investigation reports do not get to the bottom of all that went wrong."

"The reports conclude that although questions around some documents could not be answered satisfactorily during the trial, the documents were not destroyed and their destruction was not directed by the Senior Investigating Officer.

It is clear from the reports that there was no misconduct on part of officers and prosecutors." (3)

= Outrageous excuses - with the objective of holding on to the earlier outcome: the cops walking free "punching the air" - and 'NOBODY being at fault'.

(1) = 'NOT CPS' fault'. If you can't do the job: don't do it. (Would they let 'the little people' use that kind of excuse?)

(2) = 'NOT the court's fault'. When there has been a miscarriage of justice, a case can be reopened. Can't it?

(3) A TYPICAL 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission outcome.


"No public inquiry into Lynette White police corruption case", BBC, 27 Sep 13

"The home secretary has decided there should be no further inquiry or review at this stage into the matters surrounding the collapse of the 2011 trial...[she] will review her decision upon the completion of a related investigation being undertaken by Devon and Cornwall Police on behalf of South Wales Police."

A lawyer representing one of the individuals concerned is reported as saying (among other):

"The secretary of state's decision not to hold a public inquiry into the reasons for the collapse of the Swansea trial flies in the face of logic and justice."

Back to list




"Mark Duggan's mother says she is still waiting for answers about shooting", Guardian, 3 Aug 12

"Duggan's mother, Pam, said she believed she was not getting answers, one year after the death of her son, because the police were hiding something: "Why aren't they giving us the information?"

"After the fatal shooting by the police, on 4 August last year, there were four days of rioting across England."

"The IPCC came under fire from the north London June at a pre-inquest review, for refusing to hand over material relating to their investigation into the shooting. [He] ordered the IPCC to hand over material within 28 days or face being in contempt of court." ("Mark Duggan coroner threatens police watchdog over delays", Guardian, 28 Jun 12...

... Mr Mansfield, the QC representing the family is reported as saying: "We now know from footage publicly aired that what we have been told up until now has been misleading, there has been misleading information put out and then corrected, and this process seems to have been going on all the way through").


"Mark Duggan inquest: commission investigating police shooting that sparked summer riots 'not fit for purpose'", Independent, 25 Mar 13

In the context of complaining about various aspects of the case to date, Mr Mansfield, QC, is reported as describing the IPCC as "not fit for purpose" (*). He, and Mr Duggan's family, are also reported to oppose the consideration of 'granting anonymity to the jury'.

(*) See Note # 1, below


"Mark Duggan marksman cleared to return to armed police duties", The Guardian, 12 Jan 14

"The officer was found to have lawfully killed Duggan by an inquest jury last week though the jury decided his account of the shooting, in which he said Duggan had had a gun in his hand, was wrong."


"Mark Duggan case: IPCC apologises for 'wrong' shooting details", BBC, 17 Jan 14

"The police watchdog has apologised to Mark Duggan's family for "wrongly" telling the media he had fired at police before he was shot."

"It also promised to interview some "key witnesses" who had previously declined to speak and those whose accounts were "inconsistent with other evidence"." (1)

"The IPCC also said that wants to end the practice under which officers are allowed to confer before making statements about police shootings and deaths in custody." (2)

"The proposed guidance on preventing conferring, which must be signed off by the Home Secretary, could not explicitly ban officers from speaking to each other" [3]...But if they ignore the guidance...they would risk having that decision used against them in a disciplinary hearing" (4)

(1) The police is a law unto itself.

(2) See the below article. The IPCC did nothing about it - In 9 years! (The IPCC was set-up in 2004). BUT, as:..

...(3) = meaningless. (4) Yep! Definitely meaningless as these are conducted internally = 'get-off-the hook' procedure - the 9-year delay makes no difference.


"Mark Duggan's mother lodges legal challenge against judge", The Guardian, 26 Feb 14


"Police officers could be banned from conferring after fatal shootings in the wake of the death of Mark Duggan", Independent, 20 Jan 14

"Conferring among officers has been a controversial issue in a number of cases, including the death of the Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes [above], who was shot at Stockwell underground station in south London in 2005."

"In the wake of his death, the IPCC said the “accepted practice” of letting police discuss what had happened before making statements should be reviewed." (*)

(*) 9 years later - the IPCC had done nothing about it! (See, above, its Jan 14 comments following the shooting of Mr Duggan).


"Mark Duggan death: Shooting 'not rigorously examined'", BBC, 4 Jun 14

"Judge Keith Cutler said he was worried fatal police shootings were "not as rigorously examined as they could be and that doubts about the accuracy of police accounts are not minimised."

"He added he was concerned key police intelligence was hidden from the inquest jury."

"Mr Duggan's family, who are seeking to overturn the inquest ruling that Mr Duggan was lawfully killed, welcomed the coroner's report."


"Mark Duggan's mother: police report is 'another slap in the face'", The Guardian, 25 Mar 15

"The IPCC said its investigation had no evidence that sufficiently undermines the accounts provided by V53 [code name for officer] in his statements and the evidence at the inquest.

But he had refused to be interviewed by the IPCC, instead providing a statement." [WHY?]

From a community activist: "This Mark Duggan whitewash should be the death knell for the IPCC", The Guardian, 25 Mar 15


"Riots murder trial: Senior officer 'lied under oath'", BBC, 19 July 12

(NB: 'Caused': (1)- by the police's failure to provide information to the family of Mr Duggan ; (2)- because there are rumours of 'agitators' - as e.g. during the anti-Iraq war demonstration. (A tactic used to 'justify' being given more power (header 2)).

"A trial of eight men accused of murder during the Birmingham riots almost collapsed when a judge declared a police officer had "invented a story." "The eight defendants have been found not guilty..."

"The jury heard [that the] Detective Chief Inspector....had been found to have "invented" evidence given under oath during a hearing held in their absence." (*)

"[The] Assistant Chief Constable...said no officer involved in the case had been suspended during the investigation. Asked at a press conference: "Is it correct that the judge found the senior investigating officer had lied under oath?". He replied: "That was the finding the judge made."

"He added: "Whatever the officers are alleged to have done, had it been so serious as to require the halt of the trial, then that's what the judge would have ordered and he specifically did not do that"

(*) Lying under oath amounts to perjury.

And "An 85-year old Royal Navy veteran, Norman Scarth was jailed for 6 months for recording court proceedings" (above) !?!?!

Evidently, committing perjury, as well as contempt of court, is perceived as being 'far less serious' than allegedly recording proceedings - in courts that must be open to the public so that 'justice can be seen to be served'. Yep! kangaroo courts alright!

Back to list




"Police incompetence let killers go free, says father of Birmingham riot victim", The Guardian, 7 May 14

"Mr Tariq Jahan was hailed a hero for calling for peace after his son was killed during the 2011 riots." (1)

"He says he has lost faith in justice system...and would continue his fight for justice [2] after IPCC report accused police of being reckless but said no officer would be disciplined."

"During the trial, DI Khalid Kiyani said his boss, DCI Anthony Tagg, had approved of the offer of immunity [to witnesses], but Tagg denied this. Tagg was accused by the judge of lying under oath, but the IPCC said Tagg had no case to answer". (3)

"The IPCC said DI Khalid Kiyani had retired from the police service and could no longer face disciplinary proceedings." (3)

"Mr Jahan said he had believed in the police but had now lost faith in them. "I actually believed in the police and the system. I believed I would get justice..." (4)

"Gary Cann, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police, said:.."The learning from this investigation [5] has been built into future training for all senior investigating officers."

(1) I am obviously very sorry for Mr Jahan's loss. His experience prompts me to draw attention to what I wrote in My Diary on 15 Jan 09, under 'Food for thought': that none of us can ignore what is taking place in this island-Kingdom - because you don't know when you might be its next victim.

(2) Something I totally understand.

(3) "accused by the judge of lying under oath". How come that the judge did not use his powers under court rules? Was that recorded as a pretence of 'justice' - knowing that it would not get anywhere, as...

... the trump card: 'retirement' would, yet again (*) be pulled out - thereby, 'in their view', closing the case?

(*) (1)- the findings from a 31 Oct 11 BBC Panorama programme, about police officers "retiring" - as a means of avoiding disciplinary proceedings: police # 5.4 ; (2)- Sir Norman Bettison re. Hillsborough (above): 1st; 2nd article ; (3)- the 3 officers who "retired" re. Mr Leonard McCourt (below).... and 'the promise' by Theresa May in Feb 13 (below).

(4) Like me!: police ; 'system'.

(5) The favourite quote that comes out once things have - yet again - been pushed under the carpet (that must by now be flying in another universe from having so much brushed under it): "Lessons have been learnt".

Back to list




Investigation of G20 death ‘cover-up’ would be inappropriate, Ian Tomlinson’s family told, Guardian, 5 Nov 09

Ian Tomlinson is the innocent man who, during the London G20 protest, as he was walking away, hands in his pockets, was hit from behind with a baton by police officer, Simon Harwood, who also pushed him, causing Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily to the ground. He died minutes later.

The article states that: “Within 24 hours of Tomlinson’s death, police became aware that their officers may have been involved in a physical altercation with him.

However, in public, police refused to confirm there had been contact and resisted calls for an independent investigation until five days later, when the Guardian revealed video footage of the incident.” (NB: Filmed by a member of the public).

In reply to their protest that their loved one’s death was not mentioned in any of the inquiries – viewing it as "a cover-up" - Mr Tomlinson's family was

"told by Victoria Borwick [1], the Conservative chair of the panel, that she believed it would be “inappropriate” for the Metropolitan Police Authority… to take up their concerns.

There is nothing any of us can say to reverse the situation of what happened last April,” [2] she added. “We are extremely sorry. (3)

(1)- This 'compassionate woman' subsequently replaced 'my' equally 'compassionate' MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

(2)- Another closing of rank version: from the then Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Ann Abraham - in the case of the death of little Joshua Titcombe, at the Morecambe Bay hospital: "there would be "no worthwhile outcome" in pursuing an investigation".

(3)- At least Mr Tomlinson's family got a "Sorry"; how the British state gets away with killing people; other example: Stafford hospital.


"Ian Tomlinson officer's hearing to take place in public", Guardian, 4 May 11

In the context of a coroner's inquest, the jury's verdict was that Simon Harwood had "unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson". The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had previously 'determined' to not bring proceedings against Simon Harwood.

(NB: On 24 May 11, an interviewee, on BBC2 Newsnight, described the relationship between the CPS and the police as "incestuous") (As I discovered, the CPS shares offices with the police).

(From personal experience (QB # 5 , police # 5.4), (added to that of others: police # 5.4), I submit that there is also an "incestuous" relationship between the police and the IPCC).


"Tomlinson case: Met police tried to hide PC Harwood's disciplinary record", Guardian, 20 July 12

"Files contained multiple assault allegations but police lawyers said disclosing them would have breached officer's privacy".

"Harwood, 45, who was found not guilty of Tomlinson's manslaughter on Thursday, had repeatedly been accused of using excessive force during his career, including claims he punched, throttled, kneed and unlawfully arrested people.

Nine of the complaints were dismissed or unproven, but one, in which Harwood admitted he had gone into "red mist mode" before unlawfully accessing the police national computer, was upheld".

"Harwood was able to avoid disciplinary action by retiring from the Met, rejoining the force three days later in a civilian role and then reapplying to enter uniformed ranks".

[NB: From "Police officer Simon Harwood cleared of killing Ian Tomlinson", Telegraph, 19 July 12 - "Harwood was due to face internal proceedings in 2001 after being accused of unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable conduct but these were discontinued when he retired on medical grounds.

After retiring as a police officer from the Met, Harwood rejoined the force as a civilian worker, then became a police officer for Surrey. He was later allowed to rejoin the Met in 2004 as part of its Territorial Support Group (TSG), specialising in public order"] (*)

"The jury in the trial were not told about the history of complaints, despite a submission from the Crown Prosecution Service, which argued that in two of the disciplinary matters he was accused of using heavy-handed tactics against the public "when they presented no threat"".

"The application was rejected by the judge, who said: "The jury, in effect, would have to conduct three trials. The inquest jury – which concluded last year that Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed" by the police officer – was also prevented from hearing the details of the complaints".

(*) See: (1)- the findings from a 31 Oct 11 BBC Panorama programme, about police officers "retiring" - as a means of avoiding disciplinary proceedings: police # 5.4 ; (2)- Sir Norman Bettison, above.


"Family of Ian Tomlinson accuse Met disciplinary panel of 'whitewash' over Pc Simon Harwood", Independent, 17 Sep 12

"The family of Ian Tomlinson have accused the Metropolitan Police of conducting a “whitewash” after a disciplinary panel ruled there was no need to examine whether one of their officers caused the newspaper vendor's death."

"Harwood faced three individual charges: that he struck Mr Tomlinson on his left thigh, that he pushed him to the ground and that his actions “inadvertently caused or contributed” to his death."

"Lawyers for PC Harwood said their client admitted the first two charges but rejected the third, calling it a “grotesque and provocative” attempt that was “deliberately designed to provoke a retrial of Mr Harwood on charges of which he has already been acquitted.

"The panel hearing the case - which included two senior police officers and a lay member - decided that there was no need to examine the third charge because Harwood had already admitted to two charges of gross misconduct which were themselves a sackable offence".

(NB: And 'maybe' the police will also nominate itself for 'a PR award' - and win it - as it did in the case of its killing a 16-year old schoolgirl)


"Ian Tomlinson pathologist Freddy Patel 'not fit to practise", The Telegraph, 21 Aug 12

"Freddy Patel, the pathologist responsible for the first post mortem on Ian Tomlinson, who died after being pushed to the ground by a police officer in the G20 protests, has been found unfit to practise by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS)”.

"Dr Patel had found that the newspaper vendor died of coronary artery disease, but the MPTS said that was wrong...Mr Tomlinson died from injury to his liver that caused internal bleeding and then cardiac arrest."

"The panel ruling was not only in consideration of the Ian Tomlinson case, but also three other post mortems in which he had acted "irresponsibly"..." (*)

Comment from a Reader: "Charge him with perverting the course of justice; nothing but a dirty stooge for the bent corrupt police service"

(*) It had taken place several years previously - and was known. Why was he allowed to continue practising?


"Ian Tomlinson's family win apology from Met police over death in 2009", The Guardian, 5 Aug 13

"The Metropolitan police have issued a formal apology to the family [of Mr Tomlinson]...and an undisclosed settlement ...accepting for the first time that "excessive and unlawful" force had been used." (1)

"The public admission of unlawful killing by the Metropolitan police is the final verdict, and it is as close as we are going to get to justice," Tomlinson's widow, Julia Tomlinson, said."

It reports that, "in her statement, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Maxine de Brunner, apologised to the family for: suffering distress; ill-considered comments made in the media in the immediate aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death; a failure to vet and discipline Harwood properly over a string of previous disciplinary hearings." (1)

"However, despite the string of apologies, the Met confirmed on Monday night that no officer – except Harwood, who was sacked for gross misconduct in September last year – had faced disciplinary action." (2)

(1) Has the Met suddenly discovered moral values? Nop! The motivation was PR, as I heard a spokesman on radio say that Met ( were "concerned" about the impact of the case on public perceptions.

(2) Quelle surprise!

Back to list




"Officers will not face court over ‘errors’ that led to Leonard McCourt’s death", Independent, 1 Nov 12

"The family of a man who died in the back of a police van following a “catalogue of errors” by officers supposed to be monitoring him today spoke of their anger that nobody would face a criminal prosecution over his death".

"An inquest jury found this week that Mr McCourt, who had a heart condition, died during the journey after twice being pepper-sprayed outside his home".

"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that it concluded no charges would be brought because any prosecution would have to prove that McCourt would not have died if officers had acted differently"

"Four officers will now face misconduct hearings over the arrest and death of the 44-year-old".

"Durham Constabulary said it accepted the inquest's findings and that lessons had been learned" (1)

7 MONTHS LATER: "Deaths in custody - Heavy duty", Private Eye, 1368, 13-26 Jun 14, pg 30

"Three officers retired or resigned ahead of the misconduct hearing [2]and the only officer found guilty of gross misconduct was allowed to keep his job."

"Deborah Coles of Inquest told the Eye: “This pattern of cases where police are either allowed to retire or resign [2], or where cases of gross misconduct get watered to down to giving ‘words of advice’ or ‘written warnings’, brings the police complaints process into disrepute.”

(1) The No 1 favourite of the public sector. Other examples: David Cameron re. Stafford Hospital; Prison Service re. Mr Best.

(2) = Like the other recent (above) examples: (1)- Sir Norman Bettison - re. Hillsborough: 1st; 2nd article ; (2)- DI Khalid Kiyani - re. Mr Tarik Jahan.

= Adding more supporting evidence to my conclusion of more than 1 year ago, that Theresa May, then Home Secretary, was just adding more frills to the window dressing (below).

Back to list




"Criminal case reviews - Reviewing the reviewers", Private Eye, 1401, 18 Sep- 1 Oct 15, pg 40

"Lawyers acting for the two Cohen brothers jailed for murder have applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to remove the investigating commissioner, Andrew Rennison, a former West Yorkshire detective superintendent,...

after it emerged that he was once part of a police squad which was heavily criticised in the Supreme Court five years ago for “a prolonged, persistent and pervasive conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”, resulting in a miscarriage of justice."

"Now at the CCRC, Mr Rennison recently rejected the case of brothers Ashley and David Cohen, who were convicted in April 2008 of the murder of taxi driver Younis Khan in Sheffield."

"Their conviction depended largely on the testimony of Vincent Simmons, a convicted fraudster and fellow inmate at Armley prison in Leeds, where the brothers were held on remand on suspicion of the murder.

Simmonds claimed the Cohens had indicated to him that they were involved in the killing – a so-called “cell confession [*]. The brothers have always denied the murder…"

"Six years after the conviction, Simmonds telephoned both the brothers’ mother and David Cohen’s partner...saying he would be “willing to tell the truth” and confirm in a statement that his trial evidence was a lie in return for £100,000.

He also said that he was a “protected witness”. The Cohen women recorded the conversation."

"In asking to send the case back to the court, the brothers’ lawyers also asked to investigate Simmons’ relationship with South Yorkshire police..."

"Commissioner Rennison turned down the Cohen’s application, saying: “Simmons was known to be a dishonest man and his attempt to obtain a substantial sum of money in return for changing his testimony would be seen by the Court of Appeal as a continuation of his dishonest nature”. Curious, given that he had been put forward as a witness of truth."

"The Cohens then discovered that when Mr Rennison was working for West Yorkshire police he was involved in a similar “cell confession” case, where it was later discovered that a prisoner had been offered inducement in return for his evidence against Daniel Maxwell and Paul Mansell – and that police had covered it up.

When the case was quashed by the Supreme Court, Rennison was West Yorkshire police director of intelligence, responsible for the management and use of informants."

"At the time of the appeal, Rennison had written to the defence lawyers acting for Maxwell and Mansell assuring them that although a reward of £10,000 was agreed by the “police command team”, this had not been discussed with the informant ahead of the trial."

While the informant [*] was in police custody he was “permitted to visit a brothel, to engage in sexual relations with a woman police constable, to visit public houses, to consume not merely alcohol but also cannabis and heroin, and to socialise at police officers’ homes

(*) The use of plants is one of the favourite traps used by the British state - a tactic that is also keenly adopted by its criminal hangers-on and cronies e.g. in my case (Persecution # 2.8)

In the light of this past history: WHY was Andrew Rennison given the job of investigating commissioner at the CCRC? (No doubt the others involved in the police have also prospered).

= Yet another example that endorses the conclusion by the Sunday Times' Guest Contributor: Overview # 20.

Back to list




"A lack of intelligence", Private Eye, 1398, 7-20 Aug 15, pg 34

"Dorset police were accused of wasting public money on court proceedings by wrongly refusing to disclose information they held on a man who has never been convicted of an offence."

"Ken Cook, 74, a retired engineer from Southbourne, believed police were not properly investigating his complaints and, citing the Data Protection Act, had asked for copies of all personal data held on him, including any intelligence reports." (1)

"Officers handed over some data but declined to confirm or deny that they held intelligence – claiming information held for the purposes of preventing or detecting crimedid not need to be disclosed." (2)

"Mr Cook, initially representing himself [3], argued in court that as he had only ever been a victim of crime, the exemption could not apply to him." (2)

"His claim was struck out as having no chance of success [4] ; but then David Lock QC, from the Bar’s pro bono unit, then took up the case, the police authority was forced to admit that it cannot simply shout “prevention of crime” to avoid its legal obligation of transparency."

"It duly consented to a court order to provide the judge with the relevant documents so the court could decide whether disclosure would hamper the fight against crime.

But it then admitted that it had never held any such documents relating to Mr Cook in the first place!" (5)

(1)- As I did: police # 5.1

(2)- Ditto in my case: police # 3(9) - including my stating (among many other documents by then to the police and the court), under para.94 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request: "Why, in spite of this evidence is the police treating Ladsky as ‘the victim’ and - without any supporting evidence – treating me as ‘the criminal’?"

(3)- Ditto in my case: Overview # 18(2)

(4)- Ditto in my case: Overview 18(2)(1)

(5)- = Typical conduct for Her Majesty's police! Leaving aside the issue of whether or not it holds data on Mr Cook: has the police compensated him for subjecting him to all this distress and anguish - as well as costs, not to mention his time? What action has the court taken against the police? Likely answers: 'None' and 'no'.

(See also the case of John Catt, and of a group of journalists)

Back to list




"No questions, no comment ", Private Eye, 1398, 7-20 Aug 15, pg 34

"Two Thames Valley police [1] officers have been cleared by their bosses of wrongdoing in the case of Wexham Park Hospital (Slough) patient with pneumonia, Philmore Mills, 57-year old, who died after being becoming unconscious while being forcibly restrained. (Eyes 1308 & 1338)."

"The conclusion was arrived at a police misconduct hearing – without the officers having to answer any questions."

"The Crown Prosecution Service decided no charges should be brought [2] , but the IPCC recommended that the two officers face misconduct charges [3] over their failure to ask nursing staff for information about Mr Mills, and for their use of force, alleging breaches of their duties and responsibilities."

"Lawyer for the officers submitted that they had no case to answer. [4] The panel had heard evidence form hospital witnesses and three experts on the use of restraint who were cross-examined only by lawyers from the police. (Family members were allowed into the hearing to observe but played no part in the proceedings)."

"The panel noted that police training in the use of restraint was flawed…that conclusion appeared to excuse the officers of their duty to apply common sense in handling a frail and sick man in a hospital." (5)

"Mr Mill’s daughter said that within five minutes of the family being told the outcome of the hearing, Thames Valley police had put out a prepared statement, suggesting the force and officers knew the outcome long before the family." (6)

(1)- Thames Valley police back in the news! See below: (i)- "Police harassment - What Katie didn't do"; (ii)- "Oxford officer silenced over sex abuse fears"

(2)- Quelle surprise!

(3)- The IPCC breaking rank by recommending "misconduct charges" the knowledge that nothing would happen?

(4)- Another one from the same mould as the one I faced in the Queen's Bench Division, acting for the police (!): Nicholas Wilcox. (QB # 4.6(5))

(5)- It's called the 'pass the jail' excuse. It's never their fault. It's 'because they are not properly equipped' e.g. "to deal with the scale and complexity of the matter" (The Cardiff Three, above); there has been "a breakdown in communication" (FSA - HBOS collapse - Trust fund-Intro), etc.

(6)- In fact, based on my experience, I suggest it had been decided from the start.

This is sickening beyond words.


"Ingrained arrogance in the police leads to miscarriages of justice", by John Bromley-Davenport, QC, The Times, 21 May 09

"...the recent police operation at the G20 summit and instinctive reaction of some officers to doctor the facts [see above] indicates that a deep-seated corruption in policing still prevails".

"It reared its head after the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes [above] and stems from a self-righteous arrogance within police forces and a belief, held widely by many officers, that they are above the law." [1]

"It leads to attitudes that have led to manipulation of evidence and wrongful convictions: victims include Colin Stagg and Barry George."

"The history of the criminal courts is littered with false convictions caused by overzealous and dishonest policing" [2] "Many judges seemed blind to police dishonesty..." (3)

"Judicial myopia reached the very top. In the appeal of the Birmingham Six, Lord Denning said: “If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous . . . this is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further.

Eleven years later it was accepted that the “appalling vista” was no less than the truth."

"The danger to liberty and to the rule of law lies in the tendency of some to decide on guilt first and then look for evidence in support.

It is this tendency with its deep-rooted origins in the history of the police service that leads to injustice.

It is this tendency that can and does lead to the conviction of the innocent. And it stems from the same malaise that causes the overreaction and brutality we saw at the G20."

(1), (2) and (3): I know A LOT about that: e.g. Queen's Bench: # 4

(See the next article for a demonstration of unbelievable arrogance and duplicity by a former Met Commissioner)

Back to list


"With the Met, if you are innocent you have everything to worry about", Guardian, 25 Jun 13 - by Michael Mansfield, QC

Mr Mansfield refers to "The quite disgraceful conduct of police undercover agents, and discrediting of victims by the police: family of Stephen Lawrence [below], Bloody Sunday, Jean Charles de Menezes [above] and Hillsborough. [above]".

Referring to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) that infiltrated protest groups, he states: "So much for another mantra commonly trotted out by our leaders that we enjoy freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest."

"Officers have adopted false identities, often those of dead infants [below], played roles which involved intimate relationships with women [below] who rightly feel desperately abused.

The Mark Kennedy saga [My Diary 2011] is an exemplification of the scope and depth of infiltration."

"In January this year, Maina Kiai, the UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, provided a highly critical report on violations of human rights in the UK." (*)

(*) Surely not!... as the then PM David Cameron asserted that: "Britain has a long exemplary record on human rights".

See, below, for extracts.

Back to list


"Former Met chief launches attack on justice system", Telegraph, 9 Sep 12

"Sir Paul Stephenson, who was Britain’s most senior police officer until his resignation in July last year, accused police and the courts of letting down victims of crime". "Sir Paul said:

  • "Too many offenders are handed a slap on the wrist - such as a police caution or on-the-spot fine - rather than being prosecuted in the courts for their crimes"
  • "The criminal justice system (CJS) is sometimes more geared to criminals than victims"
  • "“Customs, traditions and vested interests” have prevented reform".
  • "Police and the courts will “never properly command the confidence of the public” unless they deal seriously with burglars. Burglary should be considered a heinous crime - evil and shocking.
    “It can and does traumatise victims
  • "I have consistently held the view that anyone contemplating invading someone’s home for a criminal purpose should anticipate at the very least the strong likelihood of serving a custodial sentence if caught."

"Sir Paul - who resigned over his connection with a former News of the World executive arrested on suspicion of involvement in the phone hacking affair - said there was an “apparent propensity of our system to perversely prioritise the needs, rights and problems of offenders over that of the victims".”

"He said that a well-meaning attempt to speed up justice by allowing police to deal with less serious offences themselves had created a “parallel justice system” which lacked transparency".

Proud though I am of the efforts and achievements of the men and women I was fortunate enough to lead during my career..."

(NB: The breathtaking duplicity and arrogance of this man make my blood boil, as e.g. the Ian Tomlinson case, above, and the below rape case - took place under his watch.

And, in my case, HE wilfully and repeatedly turned a blind eye to irrebutable evidence of offences that have landed others in jail for doing far less, as well as corruption by some of his officers: police # 5.2: 1st ; 2nd ; 3rd. ('Evidently', he feels "proud" of these facts).

And, following filing my 19 Apr 11 claim, HE (QB #4) he continued to do so in his Defence (QB # 4(2)), in the process, evidently claiming that he was processing his packs of lies so-called "crime reports" against me "for the prevention or detection of crime"; "the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

Further, not only did he lie in his 23 May 11 Defence (QB # 4(2)), he also lied in his 30 Jun 11 Application (QB # 4(3)) - thereby committing contempt of court - an action that has landed others in jail (e.g. above) - but for which no sanction whatsoever was taken against him - not even "a slap on the wrist" . (Queen's Bench: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law).

(He resigned in July 11. On royal appointment, his post was taken over by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (Guardian, 12 Sep 11) who, in relation to my 19 Apr 11 claim, continued in his footsteps: from QB # 4(4)).

(See also the next article, addressed to Stephenson, written 2 years previously, by a lawyer).

Call me a cynic, but I view this article, like e.g. the below article from Lord Mcdonald, as wheeling in 'the old guard' (now 'nicely tucked away' in the House of Lords), for the purpose of appeasing 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed" ' the Lobbyists" - 'by demonstrating' 'empathy' - as well as keeping up the paramount appearances, for the benefit of the outside world.


"Sir Paul Stephenson must not tolerate police abuse of power", by Fiona Murphy, Partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Guardian, 11 Oct 10

"In a letter reported by the Guardian, the Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson claims that members of the public are making speculative legal action against the police, with lawyers gaining large fees.

But, as a solicitor specialising in such actions, I find these claims bear no resemblance to my own clients' experience. It is precisely because the Met has permitted a culture of impunity to take hold that people are forced into the civil courts to seek some semblance of redress." (1)

"The motivations of those assaulted, falsely imprisoned or maliciously prosecuted by the police is to achieve accountability. These cases concern allegations of criminal conduct but convictions of police officers remain extremely rare.

In the 12 years of this firm's operation, and despite hundreds of successful civil claims, we have seen criminal prosecutions in a handful of cases and convictions in two cases only."

"In our view the reason is straightforward: the quality of most investigations remains shockingly poor and the police's commitment to achieving successful disciplinary or criminal outcomes is patchy at best." [2]"The culture of impunity has been challenged, but not changed."

"So, my message to Sir Paul is to get his own house in order: concern yourself with ensuring that your officers are accountable to the rule of law – that is your responsibility." (3)

When your officers transgress, admit liability, apologise and pay the modest compensation that the law affords. You will make significant savings in legal expenses.

Concern yourself primarily with the message you are sending to your officers: not that you are willing to criticise victims for bringing cases but rather than you will not tolerate abuse of power in their ranks".

(1) Absolutely right e.g. the below rape case; in my case: (i)- Trigger to my filing my 19 Apr 11 claim: QB # 1 ; (ii)- Pre-action stage: QB # 2(2) at which - instead of addressing the situation - Sir Paul Stephenson's response was an attempt to continue sending me on the treadmill ; (iii)- the police "Without prejudice offer": QB # 4(6)(4).

Like ALL the rest (e.g. above), Stephenson evidently perceives 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed", refusing to lie down and let themselves be abused, as 'an affront', an attack on their self-granted abuse of power.

(2) In my case: non-existent; and the shocking, appalling conduct - that very clearly breaches legislation, incl. police related - was also - actively - endorsed by, in chronological order:

  • (2)- the Directorate of 'Professional Standards': police # 5.3, and prior to this by its unit at the local level: police # 5.2;

(3) See my comments, above.

Back to list





1 of 6 - "Rotherham child abuse report: 1,400 children subjected to 'appalling' sexual exploitation over 16-years", Independent, 26 Aug 14

2 of 6 - "Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 children", The Guardian, 27 Aug 14

3 of 6 - "Rotherham child abuse scandal: Threats and collusion kept justice at bay", Independent, 26 Aug 14

4 of 6 - "Rotherham child abuse scandal: Labour urges police commissioner to resign", The Guardian, 27 Aug 14

5 of 6 - "Rotherham abuse scandal: David Cameron calls for under-fire police commissioner Shaun Wright to 'resign and take responsibility'", Independent, 28 Aug 14

6 of 6 - "Rotherham child abuse scandal: council chief executive to step down", The Guardian, 8 Sep 14

Articles 1 & 3

"The report, by Professor Alexis Jay, commissioned by the council, covering 1997 to 2013, detailed cases where children as young as 11 had been raped by a number of different men, abducted, beaten, doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes, and trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England to continue the abuse."

"...police were contemptuous of the victims and the council ignored what was going on, in spite of years of warnings and reports about what was happening."

"Police colluded with the council’s inaction. [It] failed to act on the crimes and treated the victims with contempt and deemed that they were “undesirables” not worthy of protection..." (1)

The report heard of two cases where fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused only to be arrested themselves when police were called." (2)

"One researcher for the Home Office who raised concerns with senior police officers about the level of abuse in 2002 was told not to do so again, then suspended and sidelined [3], the inquiry found."

"Youth workers who worked with the victims and had already repeatedly told police and officials about the problems were criticised by full-time council staff and their roles downgraded." [4]

"The leader of the council, Roger Stone, quit today because of what he called “historic failings (5).

"Council chief executive Martin Kimber said that all the key officers concerned with child protection during the time of the review had left the council." (6)

Articles 2 & 4

"Council and other officials sometimes... were afraid of being accused of racism [7] if they talked openly about the perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers."

"Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth." (8)

"The home affairs select committee, chaired by KEITH VAZ, interviewed Rotherham council officials during its own inquiry... [It] published its own report in 2013, which criticised the council and the police in Rotherham, particularly for the lack of prosecutions over a number of years [9]. That report was prompted in part by an investigation by the Times.." (10)

"Yet everyone else involved will keep their jobs, according to council chief executive Martin Kimber.

He said he did not have the evidence to discipline any individuals working for the council despite the report saying: "Over the first 12 years covered by this inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant." (11)

"Though not criticised by name in the report, [there have since been] calls also for the head of Shaun Wright, who became the police and crime commissioner for South Yorkshire two years ago [when he was "also a member of the South Yorkshire police authority"] following a five-year spell in charge of children and youth services on Rotherham borough council."

"...[he] insisted that he had acted properly. Wright told the BBC: "The scale of the problem has come as a surprise to me." (12)

"He refuses to quit [13]...[He] insisted he had already taken responsibility for the failures at the council by standing down as cabinet member for children services in 2010." (14)

"No 10 said: "...We are determined that the lessons of past failures must be learned..." (15)

"The education minister, Nick Gibb, said: "those responsible...should be held to account"

Articles 5 & 6

"[The then PM DAVID] CAMERON said of Mr Wright that "the right decision would be to resign and take full responsibility for what happened." (16)

"THERESA MAY said he should "heed calls to resign" the police post." (17)

"NICK CLEGG, the Deputy Prime Minister, had earlier also called for Mr Wright to stand down. As Theresa May said, she can't tell the police and crime commissioner, who clearly should do the decent thing and stand aside, to do so.

All we can do, which is what I'm doing now, which is what everybody's doing, across parties, is to say 'please, do the decent thing and stand aside" (18)

"Shaun Wright...continues to insist he will not quit despite calls from victims, MPs and the prime minister."

Re. claiming that he was "not aware of the scale of the abuse": "Wright attended a meeting with a number of survivors of child sexual exploitation more than eight years ago."

"Last year, Wright told the home affairs select committee that he did not meet any sex grooming victims while on the council. He told Monday's Times that he "did not recall the meeting"(19)

(1) - "not worthy of protection" - Unlike a 'certain type' of criminals at who's feet the police prostrate themselves at every opportunity - and with whom the police operates as a fully integrated team.

That treatment by the British state of 'the little people' as pieces of dirt who do not have the right to have rights is typical - as amply demonstrated by the examples detailed / referred to on this page. Among others:

(NB: When you see that, the Rotherham example, etc.: you know that the claim made on 20 Aug 14, by Theresa May, then Home Secretary, that "Tackling domestic abuse is one of the government's top priorities" will turn out to be just another sham.

Like the much trumpeted "relaunch" of the 'Policing Pledge' made by her predecessor, Alan Johnson, following the suicide of Mrs Pilkington and her daughter.

The 'Pledge' was included in the police's 2009-12 Business Plan, claiming, among other: e.g. If you are the victim of hate crime - ... We investigate all allegations of hate crime").

In my case, it is demonstrated by, among other, the police's overall head, the Home Secretary of the day, (concurrently with Foreign Secretary of the day) - setting the tone by endorsing, under anti-terrorism legislation, warrants after warrants ordering the police and related services to have me - the glaringly obvious innocent victim of crime - persecuted on an ongoing basis: 'surveillance' ; communications...

...and still continuing to do so - in spite of being faced, in a Claim, and a Witness Statement, with a mountain of black-on-white evidence proving that they are targeting an innocent victim of crime.

(2) - "arresting the fathers" - This is so shocking. I am outraged because, as a taxpayer, and therefore employer of the police - what is reported in the articles is done in my name.

How many more examples (detailed / referred to on this page) do the people of this country need to stand-up and say: STOP! ALL of you: take real and immediate actions to clean up your act NOW, including sentencing the corrupt / criminal elements - and report to us - your employers.

This requires concerted action. To let me and other brave souls fight on our own for what is right - makes us easy targets, as well as conveys that our position is unreflective of the mood of the country.

As Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Independent said, 4 years ago: "Britannia as she was burns, burns down....Think of what all this means. Think and get angry and do something. At least wake up"

If not you, who will do it? If not now, when?

(3) - "Home Office researcher suspended and sidelined" - Typical! Crush 'the little people' who 'dare' to stand-up for what is right. Why did the Home Office fail to take action?

(4) - "youth workers criticised and roles downgraded" - Ditto about the typical crushing of 'the little people'.

(5) - "historic failings" - Call "up to 2013" "historic"? Note that this was, of course, endorsed by David Cameron (15) - "the lessons of past failures" = looks like the decision to brush under the carpet has already been taken. (So much is being brushed under the carpet that, by now, it is flying so high that it must have gone to another universe...from which many of them evidently come from).

(6) - "all the key officer..had left the council"...and 'cannot be found / have retired (on huge payoffs?) / now very sick' ...have landed other public sector jobs? = The standard 'go-past-jail' card e.g.

(7) - "afraid of being accused of racism"? Pull the other one. As the Professor stated: (8) "ignored because politically inconvenient".

(9) - "Keith Vaz committee's report in 2013 criticised the council and the police" - and did what about it? (10) - "The report was in part prompted by the Times' investigation" - As is so often the case, and amply demonstrated by this page, added to e.g. the Lords and MPs scandals, matters only come to light as a result of the media reporting on it - and pursuing it.

(11) - "Yet everyone else involved will keep their jobs [because] council chief executive Martin Kimber said, he did not have the evidence to discipline any individuals working for the council - despite the blatant collective failures of the political and officer leadership over the 12 years covered by the report"

The moral depravation is beyond words. I wish I had a magic wand to transfer on ALL those responsible the consequences - past, current and future - of their actions on each of the 1,400 children and their family.

As article # 6 reports, Martin Kimber is stepping the end of the year!

(12) - "not aware of the scale of the problem": What was he doing - as the person "in charge of children and youth services" - when the Home Office researcher and youth workers were reporting on their findings?

(13) - "refuses to quit" because (14) - "already taken responsibility by standing down". So: 'end of the story then'. Resign from the post (with a golden goodbye? + a significantly increased pension pot?) and then just walk into another public sector job? (Adding yet more support to The Times Harriet Sergeant's incisive conclusions in 2010).

That's what they ALL do - because they ALL ensure that there is nothing in the law that can be used against them.

In fact, according to the comments reported (that would be laughable if the situation was not so tragic): (13) - "he refuses to quit"; (16) & (17) - David Cameron and Theresa May: "the right decision would be to resign" ; (18) - Nick Clegg: "All we can to say please... stand aside"...

...nobody can sack him - as confirmed, yet again, 10 days later - and in spite of his contradictory claims, as reported by The Times! (19) It also leads to the obvious conclusion that he was not - and still is not - accountable to his ultimate employers, the taxpayers, are - in this "democracy" - not allowed to have a voice. To how many in the public sector does that apply?

Other examples:

  • the Lords and MPs' cash for amendments affairs - the media reported: "after consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police decided against conducting an investigation of the 'cash-for-amendments affair'". That it had "carefully reviewed the allegations" and said that "because it was far from clear how criminal law applies to peers."

(15) - Here we go again, another of the standard favourites: "lessons must be learnt" (previous examples above under 'The Establishment' - "Masters of cover-up").

As Private Eye, # 1373, 22 Aug-4Sep 14, pg 25, wrote in relation to the Rotherham scandal:


Lessons Will Be Learnt From The Inquiry Into Why Lessons Weren't Learnt The Last Time There Was An Inquiry Into Why Lessons Weren't Learnt From When This Happened Before And The Time Before That And The Time Before That And (cont. p 94)"

So: another milestone successfully completed by the English public sector - especially the politicians: adding 1,400 individuals + their family + their friends = a total of 5,000+ people (?) + how many non-related members of the public? - with (based on my own experience) permanent feelings of utter revulsion, etc. towards the state...

...added to the hundreds of thousands of others e.g. the other cases covered on this page / referred to such as Stafford hospital, Winterbourne View, Ash Court, Morecambe Bay NHS Trust ;

others who have suffered injustice and have signed petitions such as e.g. Stop the Oppression of the British People ; the whistleblowers ; those who have left Comments on my website.


"Rochdale grooming trial: police knew about sex abuse in 2002 but failed to act", Telegraph, 21 Jun 12

"Police and social workers failed to tackle the issue of Asian men grooming under-age white girls for up to a decade." "They have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." (1)

From the mother of one of the girls: "They keep saying they didn’t know much about it in 2008, but that’s a lie. They knew a lot about it. It’s just that they didn’t act on it." (2)

(1) - A very feeble excuse e.g. the police is very clearly NOT "frightened" to describe me - falsely - as "a Nazi" and "anti-Semite" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" - in a so-called "crime report" it is processing against me on its system (to which it gives access to a large number of parties: police # 5.5), as well as in 2 emails to my website Host...

...- doing this without a shred of evidence in support - a fact it, including one of Her Majesty's Masters, attempted to 'remedy': QB # 4(6)(1). Further, it was also NOT "frightened" to tell me: "Hitler should have killed them [Jews] all, don't you think?"

(Perhaps still influenced by the fact that, 700 years before Hitler did it, "England became the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge, and expelled them from England..." (Wikipedia)).

(2) - Other example of the failure to act: the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, as well as that of Mr David Askew.


"Child sex abuse report reveals catalogue of errors", Telegraph, 27 Sep 12

"Police, social workers and the Crown Prosecution Service "missed opportunities" to stop a child exploitation ring abusing young girls over several years, according to a report published today."

"Vulnerable young girls, some as young as 10, were systematically targeted for sexual abuse but then ignored when it was brought to the attention of multiple agencies which believed that they were "making their own choices."

"Police said the victims were from "chaotic", "council estate" backgrounds" [*] "and as many as 50 girls could have been victims of the gang."

"The child sexual exploitation review was ordered in the aftermath of a trial in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, which saw nine Asian men aged between 22 and 69 jailed for grooming young white girls for sex. The offences took place in and around Rochdale in 2008 and 2009..."

(*) Note the class-bound comment. See also The Sunday Times article of 4 Oct 09, in which a woman who tried, in vain, to get the authorities to intervene re. her abusive neighbours, was reported as saying: "She feels that because she lives on a council estate she is pigeonholed as being thick and stupid..."


"Oxford officer was silenced over sex abuse fears", Independent, 3 Mar 15

"A council worker, an ex-detective, who wrote a series of increasingly exasperated emails warning of child abuse by Asian men in Oxfordshire was silenced after an official complaint by senior officials about his attitude [1],...

...told by his manager that the county council “did not like senior staff being criticised by a junior person”." (2)

"Instead of dealing with his complaints, Andy Couldrick, a senior council official complained about his behaviour and his manager made an unreserved apology for the “unprofessional way” in which he had acted." (2)

"Details came to light in a report published yesterday revealing that 373 girls were likely to have been victims of grooming, rape and trafficking after police and social services failed to take victims and their own staff seriously." (3)

"Nobody has been disciplined or sacked as a result of the failures...Andy Couldrick, who has left the county council and is now chief executive of Wokingham Borough Council." (4)

"Sara Thornton, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, said: “We’re ashamed of the shortcomings and determined to do all we can to ensure that nothing like this happens again." (5)

(1)- Another very brave soul who joins the ever-growing list of whistleblowers in the public sector.

(2)- Oh dear, oh dear, mustn't challenge 'the gods'!

(3)- Considering the other examples contained on this page, my translation: could not give a damn / as in the case of Rotherham: "not worthy of protection".


(5)- = "Lessons have been learnt"


"Theresa May refused MPs' request to include Jersey in Justice Lowell Goddard's inquiry" Private Eye, # 1388, 20 Mar-2 Apr 15, "Jersey ploys", pg 12

In its article, Private Eye reported that:

  • "The police eventually collected 100 accounts of abuse at Jersey's children's home, Haut de la Garenne and secured six convictions". However, before they got them:
  • "The Jersey States Assembly passed a vote of no confidence [in the then] Jersey health minister [who] had accused the island's government of failing to protect children for decades"
  • "The next year, the island’s ministers suspended the chief of police, Graham Power, "for making sensational claims about abuse at the home"."

"Last week, when home secretary, Theresa May announced the terms of reference for Justice Lowell Goddard’s inquiry into historical child sex abuse in England and Wales, MPs asked her to extend its remit to cover the Jersey scandal. She refused"

(The article also discussed a Newsweek journalist who came to the UK to investigate events at the children's home. it reported that, between 2012 and 2014, she was arrested on arrival by the UK Border Agency, on three occasions, and then deported).


1 of 4 - "Cover up? Review of Home Office handling of Westminster child sex allegations slammed", RT UK, 11 Nov 14

2 of 4 - "'Missing child sex abuse files' inquiry criticised by Simon Danczuk MP", Telegraph, 10 Nov 14

3 of 4 - "Whitehall child sex inquiry: the 114 files 'lost'", Telegraph, 5 July 14

4 of 4 - "Westminster child sex abuse claims: missing pieces remain in inquiry jigsaw", The Guardian, 16 Mar 15

Article 1

"Dickens Dossier - In 1983, the late Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens wrote to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan warning he would expose the identities of eight public figures he suspected of engaging in child abuse unless concrete action was pursued.

The information Dickens submitted allegedly contained the names of police officers and MPs suspected of being child abusers."

"...Theresa May avoided direct questioning [by the Home Affairs Select Committee] by addressing the findings of the review in a written statement."

Articles 2 & 3

"Mr Dickens, who died in 1995, told his family that details in his dossier would "blow the lid off" the lives of powerful and famous child abusers in a paedophile ring at the heart of Westminster.

Lord Brittan, the former home secretary, has confirmed he received a "substantial bundle of papers" from Mr Dickens in 1983 and said he had passed them to his officials for investigation.

A previous internal inquiry by the Home Office also failed to unearth the "Dickens dossier" or other relevant files.

A review by the Home Office last year into its handling of the dossier found that information it had received between 1979 and 1999 had been passed to the appropriate authorities...

But an analysis of the database also concluded that "114 potentially relevant files had been presumed destroyed, missing or not found" (1)

Article 4

"Scotland Yard detectives said in December they believe [a victim's] allegations that politicians and establishment figures abused and terrorised children as young as seven more than 30 years ago and went on to kill three young boys."

"But important evidence remains lacking for the detectives of Operation Midland who are investigating the case."

"Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has launched an inquiry into 14 different claims of police and establishment cover-ups." (2)

(1)- Did that take place when the police destroyed evidence "by the lorry-load"? (below)

Will the follow on excuse then, perhaps, be the claim of "a catastrophic computer failure"? (below)

(2)- With the poodle in charge, everybody can continue to sleep soundly.


"Police hid files on celebrity suspects", Telegraph, 20 Mar 13

"Hundreds of police files on celebrities and politicians accused of sex assault were so heavily protected that even officers investigating claims could not access them."

"Information on high profile suspects was marked as “secret” or “restricted” and effectively hidden so that it was only available to a small number of officers." (1)

"[A] Metropolitan Police Commander said: "Any high-profile or sensitive case will be restricted on our systems because we are not going to let 50,000 people (Met officers and staff) across London read sensitive material about celebrities, politicians or other high profile people." (2)

(1) How many IOUs has that generated?

(2) But letting these "50,000 people" (e.g. what took place on 16 Oct 10), as well as tens of 000s of others, access highly vicious and defamatory so-called "crime reports" against me, that are packs of lies - is perceived - and endorsed - as 'perfectly acceptable'.

Just as well as that we are "in Britain, that has a long and exemplary record on human rights" - and 'in which the rule of law is paramount'.

(NB: Subsequent media reports suggest that 'some' of the hidden files are being opened up)


"Police errors left Jimmy Savile free to 'groom the nation'", Guardian, 12 Jan 13

"A litany of failings by police and prosecutors meant that the one chance to bring Jimmy Savile to justice while he was alive was lost, the director of public prosecution has admitted as he promised to reinvestigate [1] thousands of sexual assault cases where victims felt they were not believed".

"Three official reports yesterday revealed for the first time the damning details of how the authorities just three years ago failed to build a case against the BBC celebrity, who sexually assaulted children and young people across six decades...His victims numbered more than 450.. "

"Police across the country including the Metropolitan police [2], Surrey, Sussex and Savile's home force, West Yorkshire, failed to share information, in some cases failed to record allegations against him and in other cases... even scared a victim off by saying the star's lawyers "would make mincemeat" of her"

"Jimmy Savile: police report timeline", Guardian, 12 Jan 13

"1955 - The earliest incident of abuse recorded by the police in Manchester...; 1980s - At some point in the decade a female victim is believed to have told the Metropolitan police that she had been assaulted in Savile's camper van...The police file cannot be located and the investigating officer is now dead."

(1) "reinvestigate": as demonstrated by what is reported, the complaints were NOT 'investigated' (dictionary definition of 'investigate')

(2) Same involved in my case e.g. QB # 4


"'Gutting' of Jillings child abuse report angers victims", Guardian, 8 July 13

"The Jillings report into physical and sexual abuse of boys and girls in north Wales in the 1970s and 80s was finally published on Monday almost 20 years after it was suppressed on advice from lawyers."

"But many passages in the 300-page document have been redacted, leading to suspicions that some of those involved in abuse or the flawed investigations into it are still being afforded protection they should not have"

"There was also criticism of the decision to pulp the report in 1996 after council lawyers and insurers warned that publishing it could lead to a stream of compensation claims."

"The panel conceded in the report they could not investigate the rumours that famous people visited the homes to abuse children, nor that paedophile rings were operating."

And the excuse by the councils that: "The report can not be published in its entirety because it contains personal data and material that is considered defamatory."

Other article: "'Serious and systemic abuse' took place in Welsh care homes, investigation finds", Telegraph, 29 April 13

UNBELIEVABLE - and this after what was exposed in the media during the previous 6 months.

Back to list




"Police spies stole identities of dead children", Guardian, 3 Feb 13

"A Guardian investigation reveals that, over three decades, the Metropolitan police secretly authorised the practice of stealing the identities of an estimated 80 dead children and issuing fake passports in their names, for use by undercover police officers, in a secretive unit, the Special Demonstration Squad".

"Keith Vaz, the chairman of parliament's home affairs select committee, said he was shocked at the "gruesome" practice. "It will only cause enormous distress to families who will discover what has happened concerning the identities of their dead children," he said. "This is absolutely shocking." (*)

(*) What will Keith Vaz and his committee do about it? NOTHING! Mustn't upset anybody in the public sector! He got the quote in the media = Job done boys! (other examples)


"Second police spy unit stole dead children's Ids", Guardian, 5 Feb 13

"The Metropolitan police's deputy assistant commissioner Patricia Gallan told a parliamentary inquiry that the practice "has been from the evidence I have seen confined to two units, the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU)". "The NPOIU, which is still running, was also tasked with gathering intelligence on protesters." (1)

"But, despite mounting concern over the practice, she declined to apologise to the families of the children until Scotland Yard had completed an internal investigation."

"Keith Vaz, chairman of he committee, told her: "I'm disappointed that you've not used the opportunity to be able to send out a message to those parents who have children who may have had their identity being used that the Met is actually sorry that this has happened." (2)

(1) Why the need to steal the identity of dead children? The police has no problem creating false information (e.g. "crime reports"). To me, it, yet again, demonstrates the police's sadism, arrogance, and its utter contempt and disdain of 'the little people', 'the Proles'.

(2) The extent of the watchdog's bark! Mustn't upset the police!


"Police spies' use of dead children's identities was common, MPs told", Guardian, 17 May 13

"Following an investigation by the Guardian, Mike Creedon has...disclosed, to MPs, brief details of the "very complex, difficult and protracted" inquiry, which police say will not be finished for at least another three years."

"Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs select committee, said: 'It is imperative that a timetable is set for completion of the operation, and the victims informed and apologised to as soon as possible." (*)

Comment from a Reader: "My prediction - the police investigation will take lots of time; it will be released on a busy day (9-11 anyone?); it will be a whitewash; no police will be prosecuted. Eventually (20-30 years?) down the line the truth will come out and the police will be exposed as absolute amoral, lying shits."

(*) That's the response from the watchdog: the standard British state's 'remedy' - even when it kills people e.g. Stafford hospital ; Ian Tomlinson.


"Second police spy says Home Office knew of theft of children's identities", Guardian, 15 July 13

"Peter Francis, a former undercover officer turned whistleblower, said the Home Office helped the spies by providing false passports in the names of the dead children."

"Earlier this month, Bob Lambert, one of the leading spies of the unit, claimed that the technique was "well known at the highest levels of the Home Office"." ("Home Office 'knew police stole children's identities'", Guardian, 6 Jun 13).

"The SDS was directly funded by the government, which received an annual report on its work for much of its existence."

"A Home Office spokesperson said: "We expect the highest standards of professionalism in all aspects of policing. [*] That is why Chief Constable Mick Creedon is leading an IPCC-supervised investigation which will ensure any criminality or misconduct is properly dealt with."

(*) Consider the role played by the Home Office - and the comment. They very clearly have standard lines prepared by their speech writers, they pull out - and use regardless of the situation.

Back to list



(See My Diary 2011, Covert surveillance of campaigners, for earlier reports).

"UN official calls on British government to investigate undercover police scandal", Guardian, 23 Jan 13

"A senior United Nations official, Maina Kiai, said said he was "deeply concerned" about the UK's use of undercover police officers in non-violent groups exercising their democratic rights to protest."

"It is a clear violation of basic rights protected under the Human Rights Act, and more generally under international law, such as the right to privacy."

"He added: "This is not a James-Bond-type movie issue. I think it is unacceptable that the state can pay somebody who will use women, and be part of their lives and then just devastate them and leave them. That's unbelievable."

"A judge ruled last week that some of their claims should be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, an obscure body that usually deals with complaints against MI5 and MI6." (1)

"Mr Justice Tugendhat cited the fictional case of James Bond to argue that when parliament introduced legislation allowing covert police to have personal relationships with targets, they must have assumed they may have sexual encounters." (2)

"Fifteen inquiries have so far been launched into the controversy since January 2011. All have been held behind closed doors, a process Kiai said was inadequate because it did not allow victims the opportunity to speak about their concerns."

(1) = Still treating the women as dirt, as the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is clearly just a rubber-stamping office... the Intelligence Services Commissioner ; the Intelligence and Security Committee - and ALL of the rest of the so-called 'regulators' in this island-Kingdom.

(2) Unbelievable! But, to be expected from the misogynists in the Establishment.


"Police spies scandal: call for public inquiry", Guardian, 4 Feb 13

"Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions [1], has called for a public inquiry [2] into undercover policing following the Guardian's revelations about officers who stole dead children's identities and formed sexual relationships with members of anti-capitalist and environmental protest groups [My Diary 2011 Intro # 3(3)].

"Macdonald said the police appeared to have "completely lost their moral compass", suggested some units had "gone rogue" [3] and said the "drip, drip, drip" of "seedy and corrosive" stories threatened to undermine public confidence" (4)

"Macdonald added: "What we really need is a public inquiry into undercover policing which takes evidence, takes advice, sets out some guidelines, sets out some mechanisms [5] so we can be confident these sorts of procedures are not being followed today".

(1) In Sep 08, when the Daily Mail reported the findings from an internal CPS survey (# 5), it wrote: "The damning verdict paints an alarming picture of the organisation headed by Sir Ken Macdonald". Evidently, the report did not prevent him from progressing from 'Sir' to 'Lord'.

(2) The automatic response - see above, 'Masters of cover-up'. I also repeat my above comment.

(3) As glaringly obvious from the examples captured on this page, under police # 9.2, and my experience, including the ongoing - unlawful - persecution: it is a very large part of the police that has gone "rogue" - a long time ago - and nobody has done anything about it, nor will do anything about it - because the police is part of 'the Brotherhood' (and because it holds some 'valuable' IOUs?).

(4) As a law-abiding, glaringly obvious victim of crime, I lost mine a long time ago - including in those meant to hold the police to account. And, since the update of my T-shirt, find several people every week telling me the same thing - as a result of their experience with the police / that of people they know.

(5) There is already legislation galore! e.g. police # D.

The issue, as very amply demonstrated by my experience (e.g. police Overview) is that, not only does it not get implemented by those with the remit to do so, they - as well judiciary - actually endorse, and therefore encourage the breach.

As I wrote in My Diary 2011 Intro: 'All that these MPs and Lords do is churn out legislation. Don’t give a damn how and whether it actually gets implemented'.


"Police undercover work has gone badly wrong. We need a public inquiry", Guardian, 4 Feb 13 - By Ken Macdonald QC

"The response of the police establishment... has ranged from a blanket denial that officers were "authorised" to have sex with their targets [My Diary 2011 Intro # 3(3)], to an indication that it might sometimes happen, to relieved reliance upon a bizarre recent finding by a high court judge that when it passed legislation regulating undercover police activity, that parliament must have anticipated officers having sex as part of their work, because MPs have all read James Bond." (1)

"It is, however, difficult to see where a change in culture will come from" [2].

"The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is reeling from cuts and questions about the effectiveness of its investigations, and the high court appears mired in (notoriously misogynist) fiction" (3)

(1) At least they considered it - unlike in my case - in which, in addition, they also suffered from extreme blindness to the evidence (a continuation of my previous experiences with HM's judiciaries).

(2) From those at the top, meant to hold the police to account - including the judiciary. Like the lawyer (above) said to Paul Stephenson: "my message to Sir Paul is to get his own house in order: concern yourself with ensuring that your officers are accountable to the rule of law – that is your responsibility".

(3) As the glaringly obvious victim of crime, I have certainly been at the receiving end of its "misogyny", as well as that of its mates in the lower courts (and other forms of discrimination) - that translated into treating me, (so far) over 4 whole years, as a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, outside the protection of the state and of the law - treatment also inflicted consistently by ALL the others in the public sector connected with my case.


"Women duped by undercover officers challenge attempt to block lawsuit", The Guardian, 5 Jun 14

"Women who say they were deceived into forming long-term, sexual relationships with undercover police officers are challenging "absurd, shambolic and incoherent" attempts by police chiefs to block their lawsuit, the high court has heard."

"The women started their lawsuit three years ago, claiming they have suffered huge emotional trauma after finding out that their one-time boyfriends were undercover officers."

"Police chiefs...claim that they cannot get a fair trial. They say they cannot oppose the lawsuit as their strict policy means they can neither confirm nor deny whether an individual was an undercover spy."


"Met police to pay more than £400,000 to victim of undercover officer", The Guardian, 23 Oct 14

"These Stasi-style outrages show just how low Britain’s spies will stoop", Guest Contributor, The Guardian, 27 Oct 14

"The Metropolitan police are to pay more than £400,000 to a woman who has been profoundly traumatised after discovering by chance that the father of her son was an undercover police officer."

"[the woman] said her £425,00 0 court settlement would not bring closure for her as the force had not admitted wrongdoing."

"...I live in a country that protects its establishment so much that someone like me is nothing to them – I am just like a little ant, and they are like a big elephant stamping on a little ant." (1)

"Bob Lambert, the undercover police officer...was promoted to detective inspector, running the operations of the SDS [Special Demonstration Squad] [2] in the 1990s."

2nd article

"Revelations of never-ending surveillance suggest that police and MI5 consider radical views criminal in themselves." (3)

"Reasonable grounds to suspect a crime are rendered unnecessary when the entire mindset is considered criminal."

"The alternative explanation for these Stasi-style outrages (which may be rare, or may only be rarely discovered)..." (4)

(1) - YEP! And you stand a better chance of surviving from being "stamped on by an elephant" than by the British state that ensures that there isn't even a tiny crevice in which you can escape.

(2) - SDS e.g., above: (i) comment from Malcolm Mansfield QC ; (ii) theft by police of the identity of dead children.

Re. the "promotion" = yet another example that endorses the conclusion by the Sunday Times' Guest Contributor: Overview # 20

(3) - You must also consider their definition of "radical" e.g. in my case 'daring' to stand up against 'Establishment'-led organized crime - leads to your being treated even worse than a terrorist.

(4) - As my experience and that of other whistleblowers who had the courage to stand up demonstrates: "these Stasi-style outrages" - are frequent.


"Police apologise to women who had relationships with undercover officers" The Guardian, 20 Nov 15

"Met pays substantial compensation and acknowledges relationships were ‘an abuse of police power" (1)

"...apology comes four years after the women launched legal action against the police, alleging the deception caused them emotional trauma."

"The women have criticised police for obstructing legal action through a variety of tactics [2] since they launched it in 2011."

"Martin Hewitt, an assistant commissioner at the Met [3], accepted that the legal proceedings “have been painful distressing and intrusive and added to the damage and distress..." (4)

(1)- Finally...after putting the women through 4 years of hell, including attempting to block their legal action by making outrageous claims e.g. above.

(2)- Yeah, this page contains many examples - to which I add, in my case, supplying me with a less redacted version of the so-called "crime reports" after I had written my 19 July 11 Witness Statement (QB # 4.3)

For another tactic used against at least one of the women, see next article.

(3)- Why not Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe?

(4)- And, as amply demonstrated by events: could not give a damn!


"Woman suing police over relationship with undercover spy finds tracking device in her car – reports", The Guardian 11 Mar 15

"A woman who was deceived into a two-year relationship with undercover police officer Mark Kennedy discovers device in her car in Spain, according to media reports."

"She is part of a group of women taking legal action against the police..."


"Campaigner's lawyers challenge secrecy over police spy accused of lying in court", The Guardian, 26 Jan 14

"The conviction of an environmental campaigner, John Jordan, for assaulting a police officer is to be overturned after it was revealed that one of his co-defendants was an undercover policeman who allegedly gave false evidence on oath during his prosecution."

"Following the disclosures, prosecutors have conceded that Jordan's conviction should be quashed, but have refused to explain why."

"The number of campaigners who have been wrongly convicted or prosecuted as a result of undercover police operations rose to 56 last week." (*)

(*) See also My Diary 2011 - Intro, Covert surveillance of campaigners


"Theresa May: Met Police referring Stephen Lawrence 'smear plot' allegations to IPCC", Telegraph, 24 June 13

"Peter Francis, [police whistleblower] who reportedly posed as an anti-racist activist in the mid-1990s and said he came under "huge and constant pressure" to "hunt for disinformation" to undermine those campaigning for more effective investigation into the murder.

"Home Secretary Theresa May says there must be "zero tolerance" over police wrongdoing [*], after allegations of a smear plot against the family of murdered Stephen Lawrence has "only added to their suffering""

"The Home Secretary said she would be "ruthless" in purging the Metropolitan Police of any misconduct [*] and made clear that prosecutions could follow the conclusion of the inquiries."

(*) Is this the same Theresa May who has - and continues - to persistently turn a blind eye to very serious police misconduct in my case? Er, yes, IT IS!

But then, she also takes an active part in it.

"Stephen Lawrence case: Theresa May orders inquiry into police spies", The Guardian, 6 Mar 14

"Theresa May's decision came after an inquiry conducted by Mark Ellison QC found that the Metropolitan police planted "a spy in the Lawrence family camp"."

"The police spy...gathered personal details about...the parents of the murdered teenager, as well as intelligence that Ellison said could be seen as giving the Met a "secret advantage" over the family during the inquiry."

"Ellison said there was not enough surviving evidence [1] to assess Francis's claim that he had been asked to find information to undermine the Lawrences and their campaign."

"However, Ellison's verdict stood in contrast to a report by the police that largely exonerated themselves over any wrong-doing in relation to the undercover infiltration of the Stephen Lawrence campaign. At a press conference, Craig Mackey, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, did not apologise for the espionage." (2)

(1) See next articles.

(2) TYPICAL police arrogance!


POLICE DESTROYED EVIDENCE (1 of 3) - "Exclusive: Secret SECOND Metropolitan Police corruption probe revealed", Independent, 26 Mar 14 - by Tom Harper

(See above for previous articles by Tom Harper on Operation Tiberius)

"The Independent uncovered the existence of a previously secret investigation into criminal officers that went much further than the files destroyed by Scotland Yard".

"Operation Zloty, a wide-ranging inquiry spanning at least nine years, found dozens of rogue detectives in the employ of organised crime and operating with “virtual immunity”.

"The “long-term intelligence development operation” included information on police corruption originally gathered by 17 other investigations– including Operation Othona, the contents of which were inexplicably shredded sometime around 2003."

"Crucially, Zloty included bombshell evidence from Othona about a “persistent network” of corrupt officers that could have been beneficial to a landmark review commissioned by the Home Secretary into how the Stephen Lawrence murder was handled by the Metropolitan Police."

"Mark Ellison QC was forced to inform Theresa May earlier this month that he could not finalise conclusions on whether police corruption tainted the Lawrence case because a “lorry-load” of Othona material was mysteriously shredded by the Met more than 10 years ago."

"Earlier this week, the Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe admitted corrupt police officers may escape justice due to the controversial destruction of Operation Othona, which included intelligence on detectives trafficking drugs, fabricating evidence and selling sensitive police information to organised crime syndicates".


POLICE DESTROYED EVIDENCE (2 of 3 ) - "Corruption still exists in the Metropolitan Police, force's No2 Craig Mackey admits", Telegraph, 27 Mar 14

(See above for articles by Tom Harper of the Independent on Operation Tiberius)

"Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey told the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee: “I don’t think corruption has gone away." (1)

"[Following the Lawrence investigation it] emerged that a "lorry load" of files from an inquiry into corruption – which contained allegations of police officers trafficking seized drugs, taking bribes [2] and sharing reward payments with informers - were shredded 11 years ago."

"Mr Mackey said the files were shredded after they had been transferred onto an electronic database, but a “catastrophic” computer failure in 2005 meant they had been lost for good." (3)

"He told the committee...that there remained "two big risks" of corruption, which were "access to information and abuse of position”. (4)

"Mr Johnson said the use of undercover officers to infiltrate the Lawrence family was "reprehensible" but he was "utterly fed up of reading attacks" on police officers in London." (5)

(1) - "corruption has not gone away" - Looking at his 'explanation' about "a "catastrophic" computer failure in 2005" - evidently it has not.

(2) - "police officers trafficking seized drugs, taking bribes" and (3) totally destroying the evidence of corruption.

It reinforces my perception that the British police is more corrupt than the French police - because, while similar things are taking place there: (1)- they are reported by the police at the time; (2)- the evidence does not appear to be "shredded" and then "lost as a result of a catastrophic computer failure".

Re. "taking bribes" = reversing the traffic used by e.g. the MoD that hands them out to foreign powers...and following the example of some of the Lords and MPs, as well as others in the state.

(3) - "lost as a result of a catastrophic computer failure" - WHO is stupid enough to buy that? Surely, the police computer system is backed-up every night. ("A lorry load of files" will NOT have been put on the system in the space of 24 hours). Oh, let me guess: it's 'ALL' of the backup system that crashed, 'leading to the loss of ALL the police information'.

(That makes a change from the Home Office's commissioned review claiming that "114 potentially relevant files on alleged child abuse by powerful individuals at the heart of Westminster were: destroyed, missing or not found" (above)).

(4) - And could have added: 'in relation to which we are ALL, including the judiciary, determined to NOT take ANY action' e.g. my case.

(5) - "Boris Johnson said that he was "utterly fed up of reading attacks" on police officers in London." - YES: that is the comment from the epitome of the British Establishment, Tory, Boris Johnson to whom the Met is meant to be accountable - who had just been presented with the absolutely outrageous claim about the "catastrophic computer failure".

(On 18 Jun 15, in his reply to a London taxi driver, Johnson summed up succinctly his utter contempt for 'the little people': "Fuck off and die!") (Source: The Guardian).

The Boris Johnson who only wants to hear what suits him and his party: telling the police, 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' - which means that he does not want to hear about police corruption - as also evidenced by his lack of response to my feedback in Oct 11.

No wonder the police perceives itself as having carte blanche to do as it pleases - in total disregard of the law.


POLICE DESTROYED EVIDENCE (3 of 3) - "Something rotten in the Metropolitan Police: Corrupt officers may escape justice, thanks to mass-shredding of evidence", Independent, 26 Mar 14 - by Tom Harper

"During a fractious appearance in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Britain’s most senior police officer professed ignorance across a wide range of embarrassing issues for the Met...

– including which of his current top team wrongly gave Scotland Yard a clean bill of health regarding corruption in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry two years ago."

"MPs described the current situation as “terrible”, “shocking” and an “out-and-out disgrace” as they ridiculed reports, purportedly emanating from Scotland Yard sources, that suggested the “mass-shredding” of some of the Met’s most sensitive files was due to the force’s attempt to comply with data protection law." (1)

"Keith Vaz announced his committee would launch a new, wide-ranging inquiry into the structure, governance and culture of the Metropolitan Police." (2)

(1) - Non-state-protected criminals: note this excuse!

(2) - And do? NOTHING! (Why did the committee not take this action after e.g.

Oh! I forgot! It backed setting-up 'the College of Policing' = a case of putting the cart before the horse).


"The Met is refusing to say whether Special Branch spied on Hillsborough justice campaigners (above) saying that it has to keep schtum "in order to safeguard national security". Really?", Private Eye, # 1357 - 10-23 Jan 14, pg 10

The Eye reports that it submitted a Freedom of Information request, prompted by the revelations in the Stephen Lawrence case (above).

"Intriguingly the Met said it would “neither confirm nor deny” that it held papers on Hillsborough, claiming that any response....“would enable those engaged in criminal activity or any form of domestic extremism to identify the focus of policing activity and would prejudice national security"

"This argument associates Hillsborough campaigners with criminals and extremists, when they are neither; and whether or not Special Branch kept files on campaigners is unlikely to be of use to real crooks."

"Rather than keeping quite in order to “protect democracy”, is the Met not simply trying to spare its own blushes at having to admit to spying on bereaved families who were trying to highlight bad policing?"


"Undercover police gathered evidence on 18 grieving families", The Guardian, 24 Jul 14

"The intelligence covering high-profile campaigns was collected between the mid-1980s and 2005, and affected grieving families whose relatives had been murdered or had died in police custody.

"Information was collected... [re.] Jean Charles de Menezes [above]...Stephen Lawrence [above]...[citing other examples]"

Followed by the usual laughable comments from the police that (of course) continues to take the public for idiots.


"Undercover police needs wide-ranging reform, says official watchdog", Telegraph, 14 Oct 14

"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reveals scale of undercover operations for the first time [1] and says oversight is 'unacceptable' despite a series of high-profile scandals." (2)

"[It] has uncovered a series of major failings in the way undercover police officers operate [3] and criticised a “culture of secrecy” [4] which has left even senior officers in the dark about their activities." (5)

"The damning report...revealed for the first time that there are about 1,229 undercover police operating in England and Wales." (6)

"But it was forced to admit the figure was only a “best estimate” because there were “entirely unacceptable” discrepancies in police forces’ records." (6)

"...there were 1,800 undercover police operations in the two years to the end of September 2013." (7)

"A 200-page inquiry, which was commissioned by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, after a series of scandals involving undercover police [8]...."

"In one force undercover work was carried out entirely by officers on overtime “on their way home" (9)

"[The report states] "Bluntly put, if society wants the police to identify and apprehend some of its most dangerous criminals, it has to allow individual police officers to ‘get their hands dirty’(10)

"Deputy chief constable Jon Boutcher, the national policing spokesman for undercover policing: “I want to reassure the public that undercover operations are subject to a scrupulous authorisation process and are now rigorously overseen.” (11)

(1) - "reveals scale of undercover operations for the first time" - Hooray! Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has woken up to the evidence reported by the media for several years.

(2) - "oversight is 'unacceptable' despite a series of high-profile scandals" - Que¿ (as (the now deceased) fun Manuel often said in the series Faulty Towers)

(3) - "uncovered a series of major failings in the way undercover police officers operate" - What a mind-blowing revelation! Where has HMIC been in recent years? Living on another planet in a distant universe?

(4) - "culture of secrecy" - Following the standard set by the Home Secretary - in the state e.g. the then Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) that classified the criminality of big businesses as "secret" and did not act on it - and the judge who ignored a witness statement (above); and many other examples in Britain in which secrecy is given top priority e.g. corporate law ; property law.

(5) - "left even senior officers in the dark about their activities" = not their fault! Might as well side with the top guys as, in any case, they are unsackable (e.g. above, the Rotherham case).

(6) - "there are about 1,229 undercover police operating in England and Wales...But HMIC was forced to admit the figure was only a “best estimate

A “watchdog” that cannot get information from the party it is meant to be 'watching'!

Further, a “watchdog” that seriously lacks in lateral thinking e.g.

  • had it listened to BBC Radio 4, 'The World Tonight', in Oct 14, it would have heard Lord Carlisle say that it requires 60 individuals per annum to have somebody under surveillance.

Considering just (above):

...ADDED to:

  • (4) - the swarm crawling all over public transport e.g. in my case:
  • (i)- those who act like a pack of demented blood-thirsty hyenas set on the kill: 19 Jan 13;
  • (ii)- those who come close to you to listen to what you are saying to somebody: c. May 14;
  • (5) - the swarm crawling all over the streets that:
  • (i)- show-up within 1 minute of your coming off public transport - and will even follow you in public toilets: 13 Dec 10;
  • (ii)- that show-up within a few minutes of your going somewhere they were not expecting - and will listen to the conversation you are having with somebody, as well as barge in: 31 Aug 14;
  • (iii) turn-up, within minutes of your going into a shop you were not expected to go to, and will then proceed with harassing you: 12 July 10 - and MANY, MANY MORE EXAMPLES;

...(not to mention their vast supporting army of informants - paid for by the taxpayer)... don't need to be Einstein to figure out that the number of "1,229 undercover police operating in England and Wales" is risible.

REALITY: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary - in the Establishment - do not want to reveal the true number – because it is in the 1,000’s, if not tens of thousands - adding to the evidence that this country has turned into a 'Stasi' surveillance state.

(7) - "1,800 undercover police operations in the two years to the end of September 2013" - Ditto about the stats.

(8) - "inquiry commissioned by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, after a series of scandals involving undercover police." - Meanwhile, hiding behind the policy of "neither confirm nor deny", Theresa May and foreign secretaries ADD to the scandal by repeatedly endorsing warrants (surveillance ; communications) to have innocent victims of crime like me hounded and persecuted.

(9) - "In one force undercover work was carried out entirely by officers on overtime “on their way home”" - Sounds like Kensington & Chelsea police e.g. Apr 07 ; 2008 ; End Mar 13 ; 26 Jun 13 ; 5 Nov 13 - but, 'of course', it won't be...

... - because whatever conduct it wishes to indulge in is endorsed at high level within the executive - including by Theresa May - and is consequently considered as 'part of its regular activities' - i.e. assistance to, and protection of 'certain criminals' are regarded by its executive as its key priority task. And it sure focuses on that by operating as a fully integrated team with the criminals - examples.

(10) - "if...police to identify and apprehend some of its most dangerous criminals, it has to allow individual police officers to ‘get their hands dirty” - "Some" = excluding 'the protected ones'.

When will the police "get their hands dirty" catching these criminals?

(11) - "Deputy chief constable Jon Boutcher..., “I want to reassure the public that undercover operations are subject to a scrupulous authorisation process and are now rigorously overseen.”

They are so "rigorously overseen" that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 'can only' come up with a best estimate” because there were “entirely unacceptable” discrepancies in police forces’ records."

Oh! I forgot the "now" = it was 'in the past'! It's always "in the past".

= The typical attempt at hoodwinking the 'Proles' - hoping they have not been exposed to media reports in recent years. (Another example, above, of hoodwinking re. police corruption).

Back to list



(1 of 4 )- "Woman strip-searched and left naked wins damages from Met police", The Guardian, 14 Jun 15

"A woman...was forcibly strip-searched by five police officers and left naked in a cell while a camera broadcast the images into the custody suite..."

"One officer at Chelsea police station [1] was heard to say to the custody sergeant: "Are we stripping this one?". The sergeant [2] replied: "Yeah""

"...woman said she believed the officers had treated her in the way they did because she was black" (3)

"The woman complained to the police but was not satisfied by the Met police's response" (4)

"She took her complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which two years ago recommended that the custody sergeant face a gross misconduct hearing and five constables face misconduct charges." (5)

"But the Met did not issue gross misconduct proceedings against the custody sergeant. She faced proceedings for less serious disciplinary charge of misconduct" (6)

"Four years after the incident...the Met had paid the woman £37,000 in damages [7]. They have not issued an apology." (8)

(1)- "Chelsea police" - Surprise! Surprise! It's the mafia in my local area!

(2)- I wonder: might "the sergeant" be one of those I faced in 2010?

(3)- As I know only too well, the colour of the skin is irrelevant (I am white). REALITY - based on:

My experience e.g.

• The libellous and highly vicious fabricated so-called "crime reports" this local mafia is processing against me since 2003 (Overview; my 19.07.11 Witness Statement; my 17.10.11 Appeal Request) - with the objective of:

(i)- assisting and protecting the multi-criminal Andrew David Ladsky and, by extension, his gang of racketeers;

(ii)- punishing me for 'my daring' to stand-up to their organized crime activities and those of their supporters (Case summary);

• Its thugs who, for many years, have been dogging me, hounding me, and persecuting me - operating as a fully integrated team with Ladsky's thugs - as well as aim to provoke me and mock me: in 2008 with the objective of trapping me; on 16 Apr 11.

• The thug who came to deliver an implied death threat in front of my windows on 14 Jun 14.

The experience of my fellow leaseholders e.g.

When they complained of harassment against Ladsky and, who, likewise, faced a wall of blind eyes and deaf ears (police # 4)...

...with the Head of the Residents Association being advised to "fold her tent and go"

This is a highly malodorous bunch of extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, perverse thugs who:

  • pick on 'the little people' they assess as 'unimportant' and unable to fight back;
  • are riddled with sexism, and downright misogyny, as well as racism and xenophobia;

(4)- "not satisfied with response to complaint" - No surprise there e.g. my case: (1)- my complaint in 2002, I escalated - in vain - to the then Metropolitan Police Authority;

(2)- my complaint in 2009-10, first at the local level, then to the Met Commissioner and Home Secretary - likewise facing a wall of blind eyes - that not only continued with the Directorate of 'Professional Standards', but also entailed a false excuse in order to kill my (legitimate) complaint.

The denial of my rights by the local chief superintendent continued a few months later in relation to my Notice under the DPA.

(5)- "The IPCC concluded misconduct charges and hearing" - BIG difference with my case, when the IPCC colluded with the police.

(6)- Still a better outcome than those involved in my case over the years e.g.:

  • Superintendent Mark Heath: police # 5.2 and # 5.5;

...who have ALL since been laughing their head off at me.

(7)- "£37,000 in damages" - Another very different outcome to my case where the local mafia, followed by its judiciary mates have cost me (among many others) tens of thousands of £s.

(I assume that (unlike me) the woman was represented by lawyers).

(8)- = ALL the events under Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe; that figures in the light of his lack of action following:

  • (1)- my 19.04.11 Claim against the police (;


(2 of 4 )- "Police harassment - What Katie didn't do", Private Eye, 12-25 Jul 13, # 1344 (pg 29)

"Katie, a 24-year old woman" has been subjected to ongoing harassment "by a group of rogue officers based in the High Wycombe area, Thames Valley police - as punishment for getting her police officer ex-boyfriend into trouble."

"Over a period of 2.5 years, she was:

  • Breathalysed around 70 times - she says 54 times in 1 year - every time with a negative result.
  • Served with fixed penalty notices for alleged motoring offences.
  • Served disorder penalty notices for "offences" such as wasting police time.
  • Cautioned for an alleged assault.
  • Subjected to drug and other searches.

Her car was seized 8 times, for which she had to pay a total of about £1,000 to have it returned.

"It appeared that more than 10 of the 40 intelligence reports were filed by a friend and colleague of her ex-boyfriend".

Because "police "intelligence" can be used on an enhanced criminal records check", the article reports that it led her to lose on 2 job opportunities.

"She challenged the most serious allegations, which would have resulted in a criminal record - and won everytime. On 2 occasions matters got as far as court, she was acquitted"

"Her father said: "Her life was made an utter misery with all this harassment by a gang - but a gang in police uniform. Who do you go to for protection when it's the police you fear?"

"To quote from a letter to Thames Valley Chief Constable from Katie's MP Dominic Grieve QC (who also happens to be the attorney-general), most of them [the intelligence reports] come across as entirely lacking in substance, and to border on the utterly trivial."

TYPICAL reaction - I know A LOT about - when one of 'the little people', the vulnerable / those they assess as unable to fight back - 'dare' to complain against / challenge any of them in the police, and the rest of 'the Establishment'. Some examples above.


(2 of 4 )- 2 weeks later, in its 26 Jul-8 Aug 13, # 1345 edition, pg 29 - Private Eye reported about Katie Bowman (above):

"Thames Valley...finally issued a statement last Friday admitting that four officers had been disciplined in 2008 and 2009 as a result of earlier complaints made by Ms Bowman.

It indicated that two of them might have been sacked had the complaints been received today."

"Despite never having been convicted of a crime, she is still trying to get Thames Valley to delete the “intelligence reports” on her, compiled by these and other officers, which have been used to blight her career."

Quoting the (typically) meaningless statement from the deputy chief constable, the Eye stated:

"In blaming the saga on a few rogue officers, however, Thames is ignoring management failures which go to the top of the service. Junior officers’ behaviour was allowed to go unchecked; no one monitored the quality or veracity of the “intelligence files” they submitted;

the force’s legal team have consistently resisting deleting all of the 40-plus intelligence reports, agreeing to remove about 20; confidential information Katie submitted in support of legitimate complaints appears to have been improperly used against her in the CRB vetting procedures..."

"Even after Dominic Grieve, who is Katie’s MP and [was then] attorney-general, wrote personally to Sara Thornton, the chief constable, questioning police motives and expressing his “considerable disquiet”, saying the intelligence held on Katie was “entirely lacking in substance” and bordered on the “utterly trivial”, Thornton announced only a review of intelligence – but then did nothing."


(3 of 4 )"Cell-push policeman Mark Andrews wins job ruling", BBC, 9 Nov 12

"Wiltshire Police cell assault claimant 'too drunk'", BBC, 16 Nov 12

"A police officer who was sacked after a woman prisoner was dragged across a floor and thrown in a cell must get his job back, a High Court judge has ruled".

"Sgt Mark Andrews was jailed in 2010 for assaulting the 60-year-old, but had his conviction quashed on appeal".

"At the trial, CCTV footage captured in July 2008 had been shown, in which he is seen dragging Pamela Somerville across the floor of Melksham police station and throwing her on to the floor of a cell". "She required stitches to an injury above her eye after the incident".

"Police claimed she was detained for failing to provide a sample for a breath test. She denied this, and the charges against her were dropped due to insufficient evidence".

"In September 2010, the officer was found guilty of causing Ms Somerville actual bodily harm and jailed for six months".

"The appeal judge felt satisfied that Sgt Andrews had not intended to throw Ms Somerville into the cell".


(4 of 4 )- Other examples: 'Undercover surveillance scandals' (above).

Back to list



(See My Diary 2011, for earlier reports on Phone hacking)

"'Culture' of illegal payments to officials existed at The Sun, says senior Met officer", Telegraph, 27 Feb 12

"A "culture" of illegal payments to officials in "all areas of public life" existed at The Sun newspaper, a senior Met Police officer told the Leveson Inquiry"

Back to list

"Police officer found guilty of trying to sell information to News of the World", Guardian, 11 Jan 13

"Detective Chief Inspector, April Casburn was found guilty of misconduct in public office at Southwark Crown Court after the jury decided she had tried to sell information from the phone hacking inquiry, which was set up in 2010, to the News of the World" (1)

"Casburn, who was manager of the national financial investigation unit with counter terrorism, claimed she had never asked for money when she telephoned the News of the World".

"Detective Chief Superintendent Gordon Briggs..said..."There is no place for corrupt officers or staff at the Metropolitan police service...".

This was also reported in the Daily Telegraph article of 10 Jan 13, including stating: "we hope today's verdict shows the public can have confidence that the MPS holds itself to account" (2)

(1) See My Diary 2011- Intro # 3(2) for some prior media reports

(2) Cue for laughing out loud at this 'Newspeak': e.g. in my case, the glaringly obvious corrupt conduct by Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting police since 2002 : Overview, Outcome...

...- that is endorsed - undeniably - by her high level police executive, consisting of Home Secretaries and Met Commissioners (as well as by her judiciaries) (My Diary - Home - # 6)

"Operation Elveden: ex-police officer charged over Sun payment claims", Guardian, 7 Feb 13

"A former Surrey police constable has been charged with two counts of misconduct in public office over allegations he was paid £1,750 by the Sun for information relating to high-profile people...

He is alleged to have passed the confidential witness details – including the name, address and other information".

"Leveson, knacker and the silent witness", Private Eye, No 1344, 12-25 July 13, (pg 7)

The Eye reports that the Metropolitan Police Service, concurrently with compliant (NB: my word) Lord Justice Leveson, prevented, Peter Tickner, a police whistleblower, from having his evidence included in the phone-hacking inquiry.

(Note that Leveson also excluded an 'inconvenient' report by the then Serious Organised Crime Agency). (in My Dairy 2011, Phone hacking).

Back to list

"Construction workers to challenge Met over blacklist", Guardian, 1 Feb 13

"Christian Khan solicitors acting for thousands of construction workers are appealing a decision by the Metropolitan police not to investigate claims that officers supplied information to an illegal blacklist of construction workers." (1)

"They submitted a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Met in November. But... the complaint was "non-recorded" with a spokesman for the IPCC saying it was too general" (2)

The solicitors are reporting as saying that: " the police response is "deplorable".

And "to Building magazine: "The complaints process is the only forum in which criminal allegations against police officers can be investigated [2] yet the [Met's] directorate of professional standards refuse to record the complaint, suggesting that our clients 'should report the matter as a crime in the normal way' as the 'complaints process is not the correct vehicle to forward their concerns or allegations'" (3).

"This smacks of a complete lack of knowledge of the Police Reform Act and indeed the very function of the directorate of professional standards." (4)

"Many of those on the list were forced into destitution because they could not find work." (See below, next article)

(1) In my case, they do not just "supply information", they operate as a fully integrated team with the criminals. See also police # 9.2 for an example of the police selling information to "criminal associates".

(2) As I discovered following filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim.

(3) So, the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' (header 2) is also used against some solicitors (Overview # 7).

In my case, the Directorate of 'Professional Standards' and 'the IPCC' (i.e. also police) used the (totally irrelevant) Reg.3(2)(a),(f) and (4)(b)(ii) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 to dismiss my complaint (police # 5.3 , # 5.4(3) ; QB # 5(1)(1) , # 5(2))

(4) When you look at the remit of the Directorate of 'Professional Standards'; of the IPCC, and at its 'Statutory Guidance to the police' - and you see how they behave, it is abundantly clear that they don't give a damn. Why? Because, as very amply demonstrated in my case (and that of many others), they have carte blanche from high level in the state to behave in that way.

"Blacklisting – Scots missed", Private Eye, 1428, 30Sep-13Oct 16, (pg 39)

"Theresa May [then Home Secretary] failed to include Scotland in the remit of the Pitchford inquiry, set up in 2015 to investigate undercover policing and blacklisting..."

"Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's first minister refused to set up an inquiry on the lines of Pitchford, even though 582 construction workers were blacklisted in Scotland via the new defunct Consulting Association."

"David Clancy, a former police officer who is investigations manager for the Information Commissioner’s office, has gone on record at an employment tribunal hearing stating that some of the information held in the Consulting Association database could only have come from the police or security services."

"An additional concern is that the current chief constable of Police Scotland, Phil Gormley, was previously a commander of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch, which included the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).

Peter Francis [*], a former undercover officer and whistleblower, has said he spied on trade unionists while in the SDS."

"Blacklisting companies included construction giants such as Carillon, Balfour Beatty, Costain, Kier, Lang O’Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Shanska UK and Vinci."

(*) Above: first; second;

Back to list

"Policeman faces jail over 'dangerous conspiracy'", Independent, 12 Mar 10

"A field intelligence officer with the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group, searched confidential police systems, and passed it on to his cocaine-taking wife and her drug dealer, in return for free drugs and money.

He also failed to input intelligence he gained about the drug dealer on to the police system."

(NB: In my case, the police:

And ALL of this is done with the undeniable approval of its high level executive: Met Commissioner and Home Secretary - as well as judiciary: police: # 5.2 , # 5.3 , # 5.5 , # 6 ; Queen's Bench: # 4 , # 5(7) , # 6.)

Back to list




"Metropolitan police accused of acting on behalf of big business", The Guardian, 29 Jan 14

"Lord chief justice voices fears after Virgin Media offered Met a 25% share of compensation recovered from fraudsters."

"Virgin Media [1] offered the Metropolitan police a 25% share of compensation recovered from fraudsters the company had targeted in a private prosecution, in which the Met used its powers of arrest and search as part of the private prosecution."

"Lord chief justice Thomas said it was essential that ministers, police chiefs and those supposed to hold them to account gave "very urgent consideration" to the practice." (2)

"Politicians responded to the lord chief justice's remarks by saying the Met's agreement with Virgin was a "creeping privatisation" of policing [3] and risked the rich being able to buy justice that the poor can not afford."

" the end the Met received no money from its agreement, except for a £4,000 contribution Virgin made to the costs of overtime for its officers."

"The mayor of London's office of policing said it was unable to comment."

"The Home Office also failed to respond to requests for comment."

(1) Same group as 'Virgin Money' that has been messing me around (My Diary 4 Feb 13).

(2) NOTE the last 2 extracts: the Home Office and Mayor's Office of policing - the 2 parties "with responsibility for the police" - "failed to comment / respond". (E.g. In the same way, as Private Eye noted, they failed to comment about Peter Tickner, a police whistleblower, who was prevented from giving evidence at the Leveson 'inquiry').

(3) My experience with the police since 2002 (Overview # 13 ; # 15 , # 16 , # 17 , # 18.1 - including its operating as a fully integrated team with the criminals) demonstrates that "privatisation of the police service" is not "creeping" but, is in fact: WELL ENTRANCHED...

...- as well as endorsed at high level - including by the judiciary...which, as also demonstrated by my experience, has, likewise, privatised the court service.




"Police conduct undermining service's reputation, says watchdog", Guardian 19 Dec 12

"A report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary finds that "High-profile cases of alleged police corruption, other criminal behaviour and misconduct have had a detrimental effect on the reputation of the service" (1)

"The report says force anti-corruption and standards units should challenge their own chiefs over their integrity more often." (2)

"HM inspector of constabulary, said: "HMIC found that the police service is responding to our 2011 report, called "Without fear or favour" [3], by making improvements to how it identifies, monitors and manages integrity issues; but we are concerned that this progress is inconsistent, and lacks a uniform sense of urgency." (4)

"A survey for the report found over one third of people, 36%, "believing corruption was fairly or very common" in the police." (5)

(1) That's their only concern: exposure in the public domain - with the media repeatedly covering the stories. This conduct has been going on for years e.g. police # 9.2

(2) And start with themselves e.g. my experience with the police's 'Professional Standards' at: the local level: 22 Sep 09 and 20 Nov 09; at the Directorate level.

(3) Motto of the Police Federation, "Without Fear, Without Favour". The Latin version, has been used, in part, for the name of its masonic lodge.

(4) Look at the attitude at the top e.g. my experience

(5) Considering the reaction to my T-shirt, I am surprised that it is not more


"900,000 crimes, including rape, not pursued by police in 2013", Independent, 1 May 14

"...HM Inspectorate of Constabulary...suggested there could be a nationwide under-recording of 20 per cent of crimes – adding more than 900,000 crimes to the 3.7 million recorded last year in England and Wales."

"The study follows the intervention by a whistleblower and a series of scandals over recorded police crime rates..." (see next)


"Police fix crime statistics to meet targets, MPs told", BBC, 19 Nov 13

"Analysing 12 months of data, PC Patrick [below] said he had also found that "the Met had effectively been under-recording rape and serious sexual offences by between 22% and 25%". (1)

"PC Patrick said he had learnt that, in an effort to avoid the perception of serious sex crimes going undetected, "a preference had developed to try to justify 'no crime' on the basis of mental health or similar issues of vulnerability or by saying that the victim has refused to disclose to them"

"..."as many as 300 burglaries would disappear within a couple of weeks"

"London's target of a 20% crime reduction was set by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime...chances of promotion were linked to hitting the target."

"[A] former Chief Superintendent...told the Commons Public Administration committee "That translates into 'record 20% fewer crimes' as far as... senior officers are concerned."

"Dr Patrick told the MPs about techniques including "cuffing", "nodding", "skewing" and "stitching" which he said officers used to make the figures look better."

""cuffing" crimes could involve officers deciding they did not believe complainants."

""Nodding" involved collusion between offenders and police officers to improve detection rates."

""Stitching" suspects through the use of false confessions was "prevalent in the past, but less so now""

"Committee chairman Mr Jenkin said he was "shocked that apparently such manipulation of police statistics could possibly happen on such a wide scale and become so institutionally prevalent"." (2)


"Police officers routinely fiddle crime figures, MPs are told", Telegraph, 19 Nov 13

"Dr Rodger Patrick, a former West Midlands chief inspector, said: “This is my experience as well. You can see that in the investigations that are being carried out, victims are being pressurised.”

"Senior officers would “marginalise” junior ranks who tried to record crimes accurately, he added."

"Collusion between offenders and police officers to improve detection rates, with criminals admitting offences they did not commit in exchange for inducements such as lower charges, or even “sex, alcohol or access to meals,” said Dr Patrick."


"How we can't trust the crime figures: After Plebgate, now watchdog says police statistics are unreliable", Daily Mail, 15 Jan 14

"Ex-Met commissioner Lord Stevens has said ‘fiddling of figures’ had been going on since he joined the police. He told the home affairs committee it was the ‘biggest scandal coming our way’." (3)



"Met tried to silence PC whistleblower who exposed crime figures scandal", The Guardian, 13 Apr 14

"The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) made repeated attempts to silence a whistleblower who exposed the widespread manipulation of crime statistics, it has emerged."

"Documents...went as far as to insist PC James Patrick be barred from having any contact with any member of the public...prohibited from having contact with the media or its representatives. He was told he would face further disciplinary action if he continued to speak out."

"When he announced his resignation last month, Patrick insisted that he felt he had no choice but to leave because of his treatment at the hands of senior officers." (4)

"My experience led me to see just how flawed the whistleblowing system is, how it fails,..." (5)


(1) - "900,000 crimes, including rape, not pursued by police in 2013", Independent, 1 May 14 - "[it] could see the 20-year decline in recorded crime reversed when accurate statistics are calculated."

"..according to a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMCI),...there could be a nationwide under-recording of 20 per cent of crimes – adding more than 900,000 crimes to the 3.7 million recorded last year in England and Wales."

(2) - And the committee was "[so] shocked" that it ensured that heads rolled? Of course not! The police threw the ball back at the MPs by, in effect, blaming the decision-makers for setting performance targets = another typical: not my fault guv!

(3) - "had been going on since he joined the police". He, Met Commissioner was 'aware of it', and what did he do? NOTHING! = in the same class as another Met Commission, Sir Paul Stephenson (above).

At least - in spite of the predictable negative fallout on him - 1 had the spine to raise it: Constable James Patrick.

(4) - I have NO problem understanding that (my experience with KMPG - Overview 14).

(5) - Because that is the culture of the Establishment: cover-ups, upon cover-ups and retribution for any of those who dare to speak up - including resorting to using anti-terrorism legislation.

A culture that then cascades down: 'If it's okay for the top guy/s, then it must surely be okay for me / us'.

It was followed by what will, for sure, in the light of the track record to date, turn out to be more sham claims:

"Police chiefs end clampdown on whistleblowers to the media", The Guardian, 15 July 14

"New code of ethics puts officers under positive obligation to challenge failings by colleagues and bosses....Breaching it will not in itself be a disciplinary offence" (a)

"Launching the code, Alex Marshall, head of the College of Policing...said 148 officers had been sacked since December 2013 after their alleged wrongdoing [b] was reported by their colleagues."

"Marshall said: "We want a questioning culture [c]...police needed to be ever vigilant against corruption [d] saying there was still a tiny minority of corrupt officers in the service [e], although he could not give an estimate of how many." (f)

(a) "New code of ethics" = yet another waste of taxpayers' money - as in the case of 'the police Regulations' about 'standards of behaviour' (police -D), which the police (with the obvious support of its executive, including Home Secretary) has been ignoring.

(b) - "sacked since December 2013 after their alleged wrongdoing" - Why "alleged"? Surely, if they were "sacked", it must have been on the basis of proven wrongdoing/s.

= To me it looks like a euphemism for allowing them "to retire or resign to avoid facing misconduct" no doubt, with a handsome payoff; and doing this - in spite of claims to the contrary by Theresa May, then Home Secretary (below).

(c) - "a questioning culture" ; (d) - "police needed to be ever vigilant against corruption" - Like e.g. at Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police?

(e) - "still a tiny minority of corrupt officers in the service" - The police's definition of "tiny"? It is, to say the least, a very unique one - that blatantly conveys a perception of the public as illiterate morons who can be easily hoodwinked by lies.

(Example of another making this claim: Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron, head of the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Unit (above). But then, they destroy the evidence to reduce the number - e.g. the absolutely outrageous claim by Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey (above)).

Call the following "tiny"?:

As the glaringly obvious innocent victim of crime - my experience:

(2) since 2002, with the police, at many levels, added to

(3) since at least 2005, with: (i) the British Transport police and other police related hounding me, tracking me, harassing me on a daily basis - using in part, the control centres for the myriad of CCTV cameras, and (ii) the British Transport police' helicopters doing the same thing, added to

(4) the police, its mates in GCHQ to interfere will ALL my means of communication.

= On its own, my case demonstrates that hundreds, if not thousands of police are involved - and includes those who come and deliver an implied death threat in front of my windows (14 Jun 14).

(f) - Cue to laugh out loud.

Overall = comments to be added to many others from the police, politicians, etc.

Quite a lot of other things to say about these 4 articles - but I would only repeat some of my other comments.


"Former Met police officer admits failing to investigate rape cases", Guardian, 12 Sep 12

"An investigator from the Metropolitan police specialist sex crimes unit has admitted failing to investigate the alleged rapes and sexual assaults of 12 women by faking police reports, falsifying a witness statement, failing to pass on forensic evidence and not interviewing suspects."

"it emerged in court that over the time he was involved in investigating rape cases that he was ill [1] and...not looked after properly. However, the IPCC...said their investigations had not found any supervisory failings within the Met police." (2)

(1) The 'Go-past-jail' card e.g. Margaret Moran

(2) IN SPITE of "[not being] looked after properly". Another fascinating conclusion 'by' the IPCC!


"Metropolitan police pays out over flawed rape investigation", Guardian, 13 Dec 12

"The woman and her mother battled with the Metropolitan police for more than six years, culminating in a civil claim launched in 2010". (1)

"After an initial offer of £8,000, she accepted £15,000 to settle out of court, made after two and a half years of legal wrangling, during which the Met tried to get the case struck out". (2)

"She felt forced to accept the settlement because rejection could have resulted in a liability to pay the Met's legal costs from the date the offer was made – even if she had won in court" (3)

"Had she secured a court declaration that her human rights had been breached, it would have established in UK law that the police have a duty to properly investigate rape and sexual assault, setting a legal precedent". (4)

"Her mother accused the force... of behaving appallingly during the civil case, leaving her feeling at times that they were trying to discredit her daughter: "The way they fought it was really dirty ... They were throwing everything at us in court; it was pretty horrendous …"

"..a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan police service, said: "We are aware of the victim's comments of distress at the legal proceedings, and that some legal arguments may have appeared insensitive to the victim, but that is not the intention of the MPS." (5)

"The criminal case made her feel "like I was out there by myself, and it's not nice feeling that you are alone. You should feel protected by institutions..." [6]"You can't ever pay enough money for the emotional damage you've done to someone's mind." (7)

(1) I can very well imagine what they went through (e.g. Overview # 18). See my above Comments re. the claims made by the then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson - as this case was ALSO under his watch.

(2) TYPICAL! And, in my case, the Met Commissioner lied repeatedly under statements of truth (QB # 4(2) ; # 4(3))

(3) My non-lawyer's view: it comes under CPR Part 36 Offers. The woman would have ended-up paying costs - only if the award made during the hearing/s was less than the Part 36 offer. However, looking at her experience (which reminds me of mine), it seems to me that she made the right decision.

(4) That's the game plan, so that they can continue - unhindered - on 'their merry way'.

(5) Based on my experience (and that of many others e.g. examples on this page): YES, it was! It comes under psychological harassment.

(6) I KNOW about that feeling as well (Overview # 19 , # 20)


Back to list



Andrew Mitchell, holding the position of government chief whip, was accused, by the police on duty at Downing Street, of using "foul language" towards them, including calling them "plebs". (Telegraph: "In full: Police log detailing Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' rant", 24 Sep 12; "Andrew Mitchell police row: Why has the word 'pleb' caused such outrage?", 21 Sep 12)

Considering the Hillsborough findings that had been published just 10 days previously (above), I find the following police's actions and demands, and associated (well documented) arrogance, breathtaking - and, yet again, a blatant confirmation that it (like the rest of 'the Establishment', e.g. above) perceives the 'little people' with utter contempt and disdain.


"Police officers protest outside Andrew Mitchell's constituency office", Guardian, 26 Sep 12

"Police officers wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "PC Pleb and Proud" have gathered outside Andrew Mitchell's constituency office, accusing the prime minister of failing to "get to the bottom" of the chief whip's angry outburst accused of calling Downing Street police officers "plebs" in a foul-mouthed rant last week."

"Officers from three branches of the Police Federation - West Midlands, West Mercia and Warwickshire - congregated at the office in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham."

(NB: THEY had T-shirts printed!!! (did they steal my idea? :-) ) and 3 forces went!)


"Andrew Mitchell: fresh pressure as full police log published", Guardian, 24 Sep 12

"Andrew Mitchell...has admitted swearing in public but denies calling police officers 'plebs'. The log was passed to the Daily Telegraph."

"The Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said that by denying he had called the officers plebs, Mitchell was in effect accusing the officers of lying. "Clearly Mr Mitchell is denying using certain words, effectively now impugning the integrity of the police officers" [1]

"I think that is very serious. I think the prime minister of Downing Street officials should hold an inquiry, and if Mr Mitchell is proved to have lied, he should be sacked." (2)

(1) As a general point: as demonstrated by e.g. the above articles, as well as in my case (e.g. breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; police - Outcome ; Met Commissioner - QB # 4): the so-called "integrity" of the police is extensively documented.

(2) Does this mean that I can expect the officers involved in the processing of false, highly vicious, malicious so-called "crime reports" against me - against which the police has denied me the right to defend myself - to be sacked?

Or does the police and its high level executive (Met Commissioner, Home Secretary e.g. above article - and ultimately HM The Queen), perceive branding me falsely - without a shred of evidence in support (because it does NOT exist) in:

  • ...- as being 'less damaging' than its being, allegedly, called "plebs" - in the course of a verbal exchange?

(NB: The police's PR machinery got 'its head': Andrew Mitchell resigned from his post w/c 15 Oct 12)

Subsequent events:

  • More than 1 year later (for a very simple 'incident' that lasted 45 seconds):
  • 17 months LATER - and how many £100,000s of taxpayers money spent?: "Plebgate officer Keith Wallis jailed for 12 months" [2], Telegraph, 6 Feb 14 - "Keith Wallis admitted in police interview to lying over claim he had seen what happened as Andrew Mitchell left Downing Street, Old Bailey hears."
  • "Mr Wallis would like you to send him to prison because he thinks that everyone would be better off without him." (3)
  • "Documents submitted to the high court by Rowland's lawyers say that the claim is justified on the grounds that his reputation has been damaged by Mitchell's remarks after the incident, and that he has suffered "great distress, humiliation and upset." (4)
  • "[Rowland] is demanding up to £200,000 in "damages including aggravated damages for libel, and if appropriate, for slander," the MoS reported." (5)
  • "He also wants an "injunction to restrain [Mitchell] whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise, howsoever, from further publishing or causing the publication of the same or similar words defamatory to the claimant" (6)
  • Private Eye - # 1365, 2-15 May 14 (pg 6) - "Number crunching:
  • "£200 ,000 Damages demanded by 'Plebgate' PC Toby Rowland for 'great distress, humiliation and upset' he says Andrew Michell caused him."
  • "£3,500 Average compensation paid to families of those killed in Hillsborough disaster [above] caused by police incompetence."


"Andrew Mitchell’s career left in tatters after losing Plebgate libel case", The Guardian, 27 Nov 14 - "Former Conservative cabinet minister may face bill for millions, as gamble to resurrect career in high court fails"

"Andrew Mitchell and the Plebgate affair explained for non-Brits", The Guardian, 27 Nov 14

"The Guardian view on Plebgate: a libel action that should never have been fought in a row with no winners", The Guardian, 27 Nov 14

(1) Like me, he recorded the conversation - proving that MPs also know that the police cannot be trusted.

(2) As demonstrated by some of the above examples, if he had killed one of 'the Proles', he would have got away scot-free.

(3) Imprisonment by request! let the judge off-the-hook?

I would like to add my own list of police parties - "because [the little people] would [definitely] be better off without [them]".

(4) While I obviously cannot comment on the veracity of any of Roland's claims - I highlight the outrageous response from the then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson (above) to my saying this in relation to the police processing its highly defamatory, packs of lies "crime reports" against me: PROVE IT! (Overview 7).

(5) Up to £200,000 for that? By contrast, in my case - repeating e.g. my above Comments under Rochale and Andrew Michtell - HM's police and judiciary evidently do not perceive what has - and continues to take place - as amounting to defamation...

...because, 'of course', "[my] claims are misconceived and unfounded, and no more than a most obvious attempt to rewrite history" (Overview # 18(2)(1)) - lies that were endorsed further (Overview # 18(2)(4)).

(6) I repeat the same reference.

Back to list




"Policing report: Victims "asked to investigate crime themselves" ["because of the austerity cuts"], BBC, 4 Sep 14

"HM Inspectorate of Constabulary said criminal damage and car crime were "on the verge of being decriminalised"..." (1)

"The inspector who led the review, Roger Baker, said: "So it's not the fault of the individual staff; it's a mindset thing that's crept in to policing to say 'We've almost given up'." (2)

"The review also found that police community support officers were being used as "detectives" in some forces...[3] and the encouragement of householders to do their own CID work...". (4)

"Sir Hugh Orde [5], president of the Association of Chief Police Officers [ACPO] , said: "The reality of austerity in policing [6] means that forces must ensure that their officers' time is put to best use and this means prioritising calls." (7)

"The simple fact than an officer doesn't turn up does not mean the offence has not been taken seriously," said Sir Hugh." (8)

"The Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Tom Winsor, said a cut in police spending was no excuse for failing to investigate crime."

"HMIC made 40 recommendations for forces to improve their performance."

"Shadow policing minister Jack Dromey said the public would be "extremely alarmed" by the HMIC review." (9)

(1) - And, depending on the type of criminal: ALSO "decriminalised" (a long time ago) are:

and many other types of activities which legislation defines as "criminal".

(In my case, the extreme blindness to the evidence and amnesia about the rule of law 'suffered' by HM's police and judiciary - as summarised in the Overview - that are driven by assisting and protecting a 'certain type' of criminal).

(2) - "it's not the fault of the individual staff" - Who's fault is it then? That of some residents from outer space? Hhha! No! we find out later: "the austerity cuts"

(3) - In Notting Hill police, in Mar 07, in an attempt to secure the closure of my website, a community police officer, 'TDC Simon J Dowling, portrayed himself to my website Host as: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime".

(4) - "encouragement to do their own CID work" - I have done my own investigation and, unlike the police that falsely claimed to have done it - I have done it thoroughly, and arrived at undeniable proof of repeated criminality.

Can I therefore now progress to the next step: seizure of assets to a value commensurate with my right for reparation, as well as inflict long prison sentences in order to protect other members of the public from these criminals?

(5) - Hugh Orde is still around!

(6) - "austerity in policing" - It has evidently become ACPO's mantra e.g. "Assistant chief constable Louisa Rolfe, the ACPO lead on domestic abuse", on 27 Mar 14 (which was the 4th of 4 excuses).

The "austerity" - added to the fact that the police has not gone after those responsible for the 2008 financial crash: it has also been spending a large part of its taxpayer-funded resources trying to put out its many own fires - resulting from its failings, corruption, cover-ups, lies, its pretence at performing its remit e.g.

Hillsborough ; The Cardiff Three ; Ian Tomlinson ; Stealing the identity of dead children ; Illegally selling police information ; The 'Pleb' saga, for which "police chiefs spent 3,000 hours quizzing 800 cops" (over a 45-seconds incident!), etc - with more to come e.g. Rotherham.

Of note, in the climate of "austerity" ACPO found "Millions to spend on luxury London flats for police chiefs".

Also, what's the cost of the many BMWs used as unmarked police cars I often see (and hear) in town?

(7) - "it means prioritising calls" - Yes, ignoring the calls from the tribe members that result in resources being used to, on a daily basis, hound me and persecute me, the innocent victim crime - at a cost that must by now be in the millions of £s ; hound other whistleblowers, including those in the police ; and ending the criminalization of others for ridiculous reasons.

(8) - Another example of laughing at the taxpayer's face.

(9) - "Shadow policing minister Jack Dromey said" - WHY this tendency by the media to approach those who have NO responsibility? In this instance a shadow minister, in others, a previous head. Direct the questions at those who are - currently - responsible!


Response 'from' Theresa May, then Home Secretary: adding more frills to the window dressing - backed-up by Keith Vaz

What is the Home Secretary, Theresa May's response to the above examples, and others cited under police # 5.4?

The following is sourced from 12 Feb 13 articles from:

  • beefing up the IPCC (1), “after a report from MPs criticized it as “woefully under-equipped and hamstrung(2) – by transferring resources from individual forces’ professional standards units; (3)
  • giving the IPCC the power to probe all serious complaints of corruption leveled at officers; (4)
  • a code of ethics; (5)
  • officers no longer able to avoid disciplinary action by resigning or retiring (6) , and setting-up of a national register of officers struck off from the police;
  • chief constables to declare all gifts and hospitality on a public register;
  • all officers to declare any second job.

The Met police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is quoted as saying: "Integrity is non-negotiable. We ought to be ruthless about searching out improper behaviour." (7)

Dame Anne Owers, the IPCC chair (what happened to Deborah Glass?), is reported to “welcome the package, particularly the move to strengthen the watchdog's ability to investigate more serious and sensitive allegations within the police service(5)

(1) - 'beefing up the IPCC' - That has been widely, and repeatedly exposed in the media as not being fit for purpose: police # 5.4. To this, I add my experience with the IPCC in 2010, and in the context of my 2011 claim.

(2) - From 1 Feb 13, Home Affairs Committee's report. Contrast that with the comments from Keith Vaz, Chair of the Committee, following the investigation by BBC Panorama. I submit that this committee is just a door mat - and a 'guard dog' that barks only once the media has exposed the villains - other examples.

(3) - "transferring resources from individual forces’ professional standards units" = add more cops to the IPCC to ensure the police has absolute control. See my above comments - to which I add the conduct of the 'Professional Standards' unit - "at the local level": 22 Sep 09 and 20 Nov 09 (police # 5.2).

(4) - 'give more power to IPCC the power to probe corruption' - It seems to me that it already has this power e.g.

Note also - exactly 3 years previously - the comments from Nick Harding, then Chair of the IPCC - in relation to 'corruption in the police': "let's not wait"; "if we do not deal with it now, then in the end, it will just get worse".

(5) - "a code of ethics' - See my above, as well as below comments - in the context of which I emphasise the Police (Conduct) Regulations, and the Home Office Guidance.

And more than 1.5 years later: the above article proving me right (in which I take no pleasure).

(6) - "officers no longer able to avoid disciplinary action by resigning or retiring" - Contrast that with the above - recent - examples: (1)- Sir Norman Bettison - re. Hillsborough: 1st; 2nd article ; (2)- DI Khalid Kiyani - re. Mr Tarik Jahan ; (3)- 3 officers allowed to "retire or resign" - re. Mr Leonard McCourt.

(7) See my above comments

Hence: my view that these 'plans' do not address the key issues. I also repeat my above view, that nobody will do anything about it - because the police is part of 'the Brotherhood' (and because it holds some 'valuable' IOUs?).


"Calls for police ethics crackdown and positive discrimination in recruitment", Guardian, 1 July 13

"Keith Vaz, Chairman of the home affairs committee, said the piecemeal nature of standards within the police service had to be unified for the first time [1] by the new professional body, the College of Policing." (2)

"Chief constables...should be fined if they breach a new national code of ethics and integrity" (3)

"There were eight exceptional investigations under way costing more than £23m as a result of police failings, (4).

Vaz called for these inquiries to be handed to the HMIC and Independent Police Complaints Commission [5]. "The police should not be investigating the police," [6] he said."

"Broken systems of accountability [7] and a patchwork of police standards [8] and training have allowed a minority of police officers to get away with corruption..." (9)

"The new landscape of policing requires a new type of police officer ready to meet the new challenges. Honesty, integrity and transparency are essential to components of the policing DNA." (6)

(1) FALSE. The Police Conduct Regulations - that include a Code of Conduct - APPLY TO ALL OFFICERS - regardless of rank - as do:

If these were actually implemented, practically none of this page would exist. In fact, THIS WEBSITE WOULD NOT EXIST.

(My case started, in early 2002, with my complaint of harassment against Andrew David Ladsky, to Kensington & Chelsea police - which automatically opted to protect him: Overview # 17 ; Police Overview Section 1 , # 1 - 2002 detail...

...- and, (in tandem with others), has continued to do - ever since: Overview # 13 , # 16 , # 17 , # 18(1) , # 18(2)).

And I, the glaringly obvious victim of organized crime, would NOT have gone through the absolute, sheer utter hell I have - and continue - to go through since 2002 - that has totally destroyed my life; made me lose a large of my life-savings and a huge amount of income, etc. (Case summary ; Résumé de mon cas)

Hence, I view Keith Vaz's claim as a tactic to - continue - to avoid taking action - while aiming to hoodwink 'the Proles'.

(2) = More tactic to avoid taking action.

(3) Ditto. Why is no action taken against them under the above current regulations?

(4) Make the individuals pay for those. All that the police seems to be doing nowadays is appear to address its numerous, serious failings = covering them up.

(5) See above, my Comment # 2.

(6) Another speech writer's line that looks 'ever-so-good' for the media, and for hoodwinking 'the Proles'.

(7) NO. It is failure by the top level executive to do its job; see, above, my Comment # 2.

(8) FALSE - for the reasons detailed under # 1, above.

(9) Really?...considering what is captured on this page, and my experience.


(For other media reports on the police, see police # 9)

Back to list




(See Overview Note 9)


  C O M M E N T S

Back to top