The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
"If you are a landlord, we’ll help you intimidate the leaseholders " (My interpretation of Kensington & Chelsea police’s position) |
kensington & chelsea Police - Home
(NB: Kensington & Chelsea police is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) I have been at the receiving end of the 'Kensington & Chelsea police treatment' on three occasions: in 2002 ; 2003 and 2007. In 2002, Kensington & Chelsea police dismissed my complaint and that of at least four other leaseholders when we (separately, over time) reported Mr Andrew Ladsky for harassment and intimidation. Hence, a criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 See section 1 below for examples of harassment, intimidation, assault (one occasion - My Diary 26 Feb 02) I have suffered, as well as infringement on my privacy. Examples of other harassment, subsequent to my reporting events to Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002 - My Diary 27 Jul 03 ; 27 Aug 03 ; 19 Apr 05 - and many others - listed under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. (Other residents have suffered the same treatment from Mr Andrew Ladsky - see the (incredibly brave) person who headed the residents association ; the Elderly Resident ; Other Residents. Considering the approach and content of the correspondence, to this can also be added the harassment and intimidation of the local Citizens Advice Bureau, Nucleus ) In 2003, Mr Ladsky's attempted to bully and intimidate me during the tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003. He preceded this by reporting me, in January 2003, to Kensington & Chelsea police for "swearing at him" - with the obvious objective of scaring me into giving up challenging 'Steel Services' application to the tribunal. 'Mysteriously', in this instance, Kensington & Chelsea police no longer had any concern about the "need for evidence", nor 'judicious' use of resources - see section 2 below Clearly having a 'very special relationship' with Kensington & Chelsea police, in 2007 - having failed to get my current American website Host to close down my website in spite of ongoing threats of legal action – based on scurrilous accusations against me - (Portner and Jaskel # 2), yet again, Mr Ladsky turned to his ‘friends’ at Kensington & Chelsea police for assistance. Falling over backwards to help him, the police falsely implied to my Host that I had committed a crime. It backed down when challenged by my Host - but nonetheless branded me a "Nazi" - see section 3
In addition to events amounting to repeated criminal offences against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - they also amount to breaches of my Human Rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised in the Human Rights Act 1998:
(1) See Head of Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents ; Ex(?) Resident K (2) Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of complicity: "the fact or condition of being involved with others in an unlawful activity" ; duplicity: "deceitfulness"; to misrepresent: "to give a false or misleading account"; cover-up: “an attempt to conceal the truth about a mistake or a crime” As accurately summed-up by a journalist (in relation to the (outrageous) arrest of a Member of Parliament) "The police are a law unto themselves" (My Diary 7 Jun 08). It certainly applies to Kensington & Chelsea police. Consider also the following examples of actions by the police: arrest of Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister, under false allegations; arrest of a journalist, also under false allegations; charging a man under the Terrorism Act for taking a photograph of the police doing something wrong - and the powers of the police. Seeing all of this, added to my comprehensive first-hand experience, leads me to the conclusion that this country has become a police state in which anybody who 'dares' to stand-up and expose any wrongdoings by the State, the Establisment, the ruling elite is immediately targeted and 'taught a lesson' for 'daring to step out of line' . Meanwhile, as many people are saying since the 2008-09 scandals (My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09): those with the duty to do something about it, are too busy lining their pockets. Meanwhile, judging from media reports, some members of the police force are busy doing the same thing by using their American Express card as an endless cash dispenser for their own use e.g. charging: a breast implant operation; women's clothing; fishing rod. These examples were revealed in June 2009, but the abuse was first highlighted two years previously e.g. The Guardian, 12 November 2007, "Met police inquiry into unexplained £2m expense spending". (The amount appears to have gone up since). The Mail on Sunday, 15 March 2009, published an article by Brian Paddick, a former Metropolitan Police Commander, headed, "Criminals in the police? I've met plenty of them". He states "I can't say I was surprised when the Liberal Democrats last week revealed that more than 1,000 serving British police officers have criminal convictions for offences including violence, theft and perverting the course of justice". Wow! Considering the typical public sector curtain of immediate protection, closing of rank and mutual exoneration: these offences must have been very serious. Consider that these police officers could testify against you, or I, in court. UNBELIEVABLE! This, added to everything else that is taking place (House of Lords # 1 and # 2, House of Commons, quangos, the courts e.g My Diary 11 Nov 08 , 30 Jan 09, etc) means anarchy. It is so, so sad to see this previously wonderful country reduced to this very sorry state. In the feedback section, one of the readers criticised Mr Paddick for only saying this now that he is out of the police. Considering what Mr Paddick wrote in the article, as well as my experience and that of whistleblowers, I say, with all due respect to this Reader: Get real! At least, Mr Paddick had the guts to say it now. I command him for his courage. I know what it takes to put your head above the parapet. With such systemic criminality, it is easy to understand the spread and depth of support to Andrew Ladsky et. al in their criminal activities = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets. In February 2009, Reform (on its website, http://www.reform.co.uk, it describes itself as "...a non-party think tank whose mission is to set-out a better way to deliver public services...") published a report 'A New Force', February 2009, in which it states:
(*) (NB: A footnote at the bottom of the page states that it draws on a reference dated 2003. This suggests that the source data will be from 2002 and possibly older. Hence, the assertion appears to be based on data that is at least seven years out of date) (See My Diary 2 Aug 06 for media reports of police corruption) The Reform report also states
In its 31 March 2009 issue, the Daily Mail reports "Complaints against police rise 300% in three years"- quoting from a report released by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Jane Furniss, chief executive of the IPCC is quoted as saying to MPs "The British Crime Survey suggests that something like 300,000 people who have had contact with the police describe themselves as very annoyed following it, so something like ten times the number who actually make a complaint". The article also states "The PAC also criticised the IPCC for being unable to show if it is working effectively" I don't know whether this British Crime Survey report has the same issue date as that quoted from by Reform, that "public confidence is down to 47% in 2004". It 'seems' unlikely. Whatever the date, I am certainly one of the people who would bring the average down even further by stating 'Absolutely no confidence and no trust whatsoever in the police" (triggered by my first-hand experience in 2002 e.g. my 4 August 2002 reply to Sir Toby Harris - point # 1, below - feelings that have since been very strongly reinforced - likewise, because of my subsequent first-hand experience with the police - points # 2 , # 3 , # 4). Note at March-April 2009 - And others can since be added e.g. the 23/25 women who reported being assaulted / raped by a man who was let lose for years - in spite of the police having the necessary information to arrest him; the family of the man who died at the G20 demonstration. (1) ACPO = Association of Chief Police Officers. From the Mail on Sunday, 15 February 2009, article headed "How the body responsible for Britain's policing policy has turned itself into an £18m -a-year business charging the public £70 for a 60p criminal records check" "Until now, ACPO's central role in policing has not been questioned as it is seen as an essential, if sometimes controversial, public body writing the rules of police operations...But the organisation is not a public body, nor is it a police trade union or even a campaign group. It is a private company...paid millions of pounds a year by the taxpayer to effectively run the nation's police forces..." "...Because ACPO is a private company, members of the public cannot use the Freedom of Information Act to scrutinise its operations. Last night it came under fire from politicians and human rights lawyers, who called for its immediate reform...It also employs a number of high-ranking police officers on lucrative short-term contracts" (NB !!!) From the Comment section of the same issue of the Mail on Sunday : "Parliament should urgently investigate this strange, unaccountable body and bring it under control" ( NB: If MPs find the time after filing their expenses!) Sections
(1) Blatant evidence of protection of Andrew Ladsky by Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002The following are hyperlinked to My Diary / documents. 30 January 2002 - At c. 23h00 when I came back from work, Mr Andrew Ladsky forced me into the building by coming within centimeters of me as I was at the front door. I asked him who he was (I had never seen him before), whether he was living in the block. He replied: "None of your business" 1 February 2002 - (At the time I had just replied to Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for the block, that the planned survey for the block dealt with items connected with the building of an extra floor rather than with redecoration). At 22h45 somebody presses my door bell and immediately walks into the building (i.e. has the key to the front door). The lift is activated for a long time i.e. going up several floors. Mr Ladsky was living on the 5th floor at the time. I conclude that it is him, given the encounter on 30 January 2002, as well as the history of harassment and intimidation of other residents, including in particular of the person who was running our residents association the minute she interfered with his plans. (See also Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000 , as well as harassment of other residents: Elderly Resident , Other Residents - and of Nucleus, local Citizens Advice Bureau ) 15 February 2002 - At 23h45 a small hard object is thrown at my windows. It is immediately followed by somebody coming into the building. Yet again, the lift is activated for a long time. Again, I conclude that it must be Mr Ladsky. 17 February 2002 - I received anonymous phone calls at home in succession from 21h50. British Telecom (BT) told me that 13 calls were made that evening. (I switched the bell off after 8-9 calls in succession). (Note: Although I did not have a trace on my phone on 17 February, BT was nonetheless able to trace the calls) 19 February 2002 - Another seven anonymous phone calls were made to my home phone. All were traced by BT. Hence, by then, a total of 20 anonymous phone calls had been made to my phone. (NB: In late February / early March 2002, I also received anonymous phone calls at work – which I knew were from Mr Ladsky / one of his accomplices as the first call had led the switchboard to contact me to say that somebody was asking for Noëlle K-Dit-Rawé - which is the name I use in relation to the flat). (For work I only used Noëlle Rawé). 18 February 2002 - In the evening, I went to Chelsea police, Lucan Street, to report the calls, as well as pressing of my door bell and object thrown at my windows - and identified Mr Andrew Ladsky as the perpetrator of this harassment. On 19 / 20 February 2002, I was told by DC Adams that the form I had completed at the station was lost. Considering the very obvious reluctance to record my complaint, it did not surprise me to hear this. I therefore completed another form and was given a crime report number BS 560 4102/02C During my conversation with DC Adams, when I reiterated my claim that the perpetrator was Mr Andrew Ladsky, his immediate response was “nobody else has complained about him!” (Making me feel as though I was a liar). When I said that the resident of flat [x] had complained about him, his split second reply was “the 71 year old man!”. What shocked was the implication that the police dismissed a complaint made by a man of this age, and the fact that DC Adams had lied to me. It is obvious that DC Adams knew / had heard of Mr Ladsky – and he gave it away by ‘immediately’ saying that “nobody has ever complained about him” After a delay caused by the police, British Telecom supplied the numbers to the police on 22 February 2002. On phoning DC Adams, the following week, he told me that the calls had been made from two numbers: a mobile phone and a landline. He said that in the case of the landline number, what was “very odd” was that there was “no subscriber”. I checked with BT who told me that the reason it did not provide the name of a subscriber was because the phone was registered with another telephone service supplier – and that it had specified the name of the provider: ‘Reach Europe’. DC Adams had withheld this information from me making it sound as though it would be impossible to determine the name of the subscriber (which is ridiculous as somebody had to be paying for the calls). In reply to my question as to how long it would take to obtain the name of the owner of the telephones, he said “it could take several weeks” 26 February 2002 - When I came back from work, (as he had done on two previous occasions), Andrew Ladsky seemed to jump out of nowhere behind me as I was entering the building. He pushed me aside to pass by me in the corridor. When I commented on his behaviour, he told me to “get lost” As, by 11 March 2002 the police told me that it had not heard from the phone service providers, I said that I would file a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority – which I did on 13 March 2002 – and copied DC Adams, as well as DC Crockett, with whom I had also been dealing when DC Adams was not available. On 20 March 2002, DC Adams phoned me to say that the calls made from a mobile number were from a phone that belonged to Resident K who then lived in flat 33, apparently, below that of Mr Ladsky. I noted with great interest how the “it could take several weeks to get the name of the subscribers” had suddenly been reduced – evidently, as a result of my complaint.
When I asked about the subscriber for the calls made from a landline, DC Adams told me “They came from your own phone”. I could not believe the stupidity of the reply, and asked “Are you telling me that I am making anonymous phone calls to myself?” DC Adams asked whether I used BT voicemail. To my replying that I did, he said “Well something must have gone wrong with it. It’s been calling your number by mistake”. It was blatantly obvious that DC Adams was going out of his way to not reveal the subscriber of the landline number – which I concluded was Mr Ladsky. DC Adams asked me “Will you prosecute?” to which I replied that I would get back to him. DC Adams phoned me at 10h45 on 25 March 2002, and said, in an extremely aggressive, angry tone “You said you would phone back. Are you going to prosecute?” To my replying that I did not have enough information to make this decision, he said that I had – to which I replied “No, I want to know who, what, when, where, how? I cannot take a decision without having the facts. For all I know, Mrs [x] is innocent”. DC Adams then said “We take the decision whether or not to prosecute”, to which I replied “Why ask me if I want to prosecute if the decision is not mine to take in the first place?” It led him to say “If we find out that she has done it, will you be prepared to come and make a statement at the station?”. I replied “Absolutely!” He then asked “Are you prepared to come to court?” – to which I also replied “Absolutely!” My replies spurred on the most ‘amazing’ development as, three-and-half hours later, i.e. on 25 March 2002, at 14h10, DC Adams phoned me back. ‘Amazingly’, in the space of these three-and-half hours, DC Adams had managed to contact Resident K and interview her. DC Adams said “She admits to having made the anonymous phone calls. She said that her phone mysteriously reappeared at her door. I told her we were not buying that story. She said she does not know why she has done it. I really probed her, asked her whether you had upset her in any way. She said no. She is very sorry she has done this. She said that Andrew Ladsky has been harassing her” (Everything 'stunk of cover-up) To this I replied “So, there are five people now who have complained to the police about Andrew Ladsky!” – and I listed them. DC Adams replied “We are talking about anonymous phone calls here”. To which my response was “Why are you so reticent when I mention Andrew Ladsky’s name?” In fact, I should have said ‘why do you go on the defensive when I mention Andrew Ladsky?’ It was blatantly obvious that DC Adams was protecting Andrew Ladsky – and so were others with whom I had been in contact at Kensington & Chelsea police – and it continued to be blatantly obvious. Knowing the harassment, intimidation, bullying and other scare tactics suffered by other residents at the hands of Mr Ladsky / his aides (Head of Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents), I thought that Resident K might have been made to act under duress – and the concocted story by DC Adams added to this impression. Hence, I told DC Adams that I agreed with his suggestion of “issuing her with a formal warning and that should she do this again, you would prosecute her”. (Subsequent events re. Resident K: on the 29 November 2002 claim filed in West London County Court, the Particulars of claim show that the ‘service charge’ demand for her flat, flat 33, was the second highest, at £62,000 (US$109,300); in 2003, the Land Registry record for flat 33 had “a caution” filed against the flat “on 10 October 2003 in favour of Steel Services”). (NOTE In August 2007 this resident was still in the block - which I find most extraordinary - see the note at the beginning of the section on Ex(?) Resident K ) (NB: Please note that the 29 November 2002 claim, like the second 27 February 2007 claim, also filed against me in West London County Court - are BOTH FRAUDULENT - as explained throughout this site e.g. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Mr Brian Gale, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor, Martin Russell Jones, Pridie Brewster # 18, Mr Stan Gallagher, Piper Smith Basham/Watton - snapshot in My Diary 22 Nov 08: the undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS In relation to the first claim, not surprisingly, finding themselves with the equivalent of having 'a gun held to their head' (see CKFT # 5 , # 6.1 and # 6.2 ) - and West London County Court opting to ignore the fact that the court action was an 'abuse of process of court' as it continued with the action against the leaseholders (I informed the courts about the LVT action a total of 8 TIMES) - including issuing judgement/s - led to 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ending-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats had also paid the full amount by the end of 2003 - amounting to £502,000 (CKFT # 2 , # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). In fact, because of breach of consultation procedures, the contribution for EACH flat should have been CAPPED at £250 - see detail in My Diary 6 May 08. (Events are contained in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement). Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the fraud: being persecuted as though I am the criminal - instead of what I am: THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME (see also: home introduction ; My Dairy 15 May 08) - I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately' in relation to my fellow leaseholders) On the same day i.e. 25 March 2002 I sent a fax to DC Adams summarizing what he had told me, and requesting that he sends me confirmation. Of course, he never did. On 26 March 2002, I phoned BT to ask for confirmation of what I had been told by DC Adams i.e. “something must have gone wrong with it. It’s been calling your number by mistake”. BT totally refuted this, reiterating that the calls had been made from a landline provided by a telephone service provider other than BT. The BT person suggested I give BT’s number to the police so that it could explain it to the police. Following this conversation, I sent a fax to DC Adams. On 27 March 2002, I phoned DC Adams to ask him whether he had received my two faxes. Reply “Only the first one” i.e. the 25 March 2002 fax in which I asked him to confirm what Resident K had said ‘during the interview’. When I told him what my second fax contained (which, of course, he had received), his reply was “So, we are going to have to throw resources at this for just two phone calls!” DC Adams followed this by saying “You won’t be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky!” To which I replied “How do you know that? Are you talking to him?” Given that DC Adams had ‘not obtained’ the name of the subscriber for the landline number, how could he be so certain that “there is no link with Andrew Ladsky?” My answer: because he knew that the subscriber for the landline number was Andrew Ladsky – and he was not going to reveal it. DC Adams then said “As you have complained, my superior will be in touch with you next week. Goodbye!” (NB: I copied DC Adams on my 13 March 2002 complaint to the Police Complaints Authority). In spite of saying that, DC Adams was evidently so intent on not revealing the name of the subscriber for the landline, that he phoned me the following day to say “We’ve contacted Reach Europe. There isn’t a subscriber for the number. BT is wrong. Something has gone wrong with their system. We’ll contact BT again but, if they got the wrong number, we won’t contact you again”. BT has traced some calls – to MY phone - from a number supplied by Reach Europe. Therefore, of course there must a subscriber for this number. Somebody must be paying for the calls made from that phone. My translation of the message from DC Adams: ‘Get lost! You won’t get evidence from us that incriminates Andrew Ladsky’. All the above details, starting from 20 March 2002, are captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to Paul Webster, Detective Inspector, Kensington Police station. Clearly, I would not have written this to the head of the local police if it were not true. Note also that DC Adams never came back to me to challenge what I wrote in the letter (See also the Document library for other correspondence)
I was definitely "correct" - as evidenced by the following - which predates Mr Webster's letter: • An identical letter, dated 11 October 2001, sent by Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B who had reported Mr Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police:
The next sentence reads:
• DC Adams telling me, on 25 March 2002, that Resident K (who allegedly made the anonymous phone calls to me) had told him that Mr Ladsky had been harassing her (as I captured on the second page of my 2 April 2002 letter to Mr Paul Webster). (As previously stated: very clearly, I would not have written this to the head of the local police station if it were not true). • DC Adams telling me, on 19 / 20 February 2002, that "nobody else has complained about him" (i.e. Mr Ladsky) (NB: Proving that he had heard of Mr Ladsky!). When I replied "how about the man in flat [x]?", his split second reply was: "the 71 year old man". This is captured in my 13 March 2002 letter to the Police Complaints Authority - on which I copied DC Adams. (Likewise, I would not have written this if it were not true. Note also that DC Adams never challenged me on this). • The fact that the person who headed our Residents Association had reported Mr Ladsky to the same police station in 2001 / 2002. While I have absolutely no doubt that she did it, this was confirmed in an email to me from another leaseholder, dated 18 April 2002
This leaseholder then continues:
DI Webster also wrote, among other, “DC Adams will contact you when we receive a result [in relation to the landline subscriber]…I have been informed they have a major backlog in the system”. My translation: confirmation of ‘we’ll never give you the evidence’. And this was also evident from this comment “The main (NB!!!) caller to your telephone has been identified as Mrs [x]. Should you have any specific criminal investigation about Mr Ladsky contact DC Adams and they will be investigated”. In light of my experience by then, it was blatantly obvious that it would - continue - to be a complete waste of time.
In light of Kensington & Chelsea police's attitude, on 5 May 2002, I escalated my complaint to Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority requesting an independent review of the investigation conducted by Kensington & Chelsea police. What prompted me to do this was the department's remit on its website:
In this letter, I provided comprehensive details of events, and identified Mr Ladsky as the perpetrator of the harassment and intimidation I was suffering. As my letter had not been acknowledged, I sent an email on 31 May 2002 addressed to the Chair - in which I related more recent events with Kensington & Chelsea Police - because, yet again, they don't 'stack-up' . Indeed, on 23 May 2002, DC Adams told me that Resident K was also the originator of the anonymous phone calls, (of which there were apparently three), made from a landline phone . He claimed that the calls had been made by this resident from the Carlton Tower hotel. He added “As Mrs [x] has received a warning for the calls made from the mobile phone, I consider the matter close”. I viewed this as yet another concocted story – for the brain dead – as it implies that Resident K had booked a room in the hotel which is c. 120m from Jefferson House where she had a two-bedroom flat. How could the calls have been traced otherwise? And the “I consider the matter close” was the equivalent of, yet, another ‘Get lost!’ My view is that Kensington & Chelsea police had no intention of getting back to me - but did so because I had written to Sir Toby Harris. My chaser email led Sir Toby Harris to reply on 11 July 2002
He goes on to say,
and
As to investigating the phone calls from the landline, Sir Toby Harris wrote:
I replied to the Chair on 4 August 2002 . In this letter, I wrote, among others:
I concluded my letter by stating:
Subsequent events in 2003 only served to reinforce my feelings (see below)(The 7 August 2002 reply from the Metropolitan Police Authority to my 4 August 2002 letter, once again stresses the need for "evidence" ) I should also add that in 2002 Kensington & Chelsea police tried to talk to me. However, given my experience, the only communication I was prepared to have with the police was in writing. Because of this, in a letter dated 20 June 2002 , the A/Inspector, Chelsea Police station, informed me that my
Evidently, Kensington & Chelsea police does not consider the contents of - signed - correspondence as evidence. Hence, same attitude as two other government departments in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea: West London County Court in 2002-04 and in 2007-08, as well as Kensington & Chelsea Housing... but, 'mysteriously', they ALL treat any document from Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides as the 'Gospel'. Funny that! And in fact, just his words as well – as evidenced by what took place in 2003. (2) By 2003 - 'mysteriously'- Kensington & Chelsea Police no longer had concerns for "evidence" and the 'judicious' use of resourcesIn January 2003, Mr Andrew Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him". By 'amazing coincidence' it was c. one week before the first day of the LVT hearing. This was preceded on 3 January 2003 by Mr Ladsky telling me "I am going to get you this year". Evidently anticipating that he would "get me" at the 5 February 2003 tribunal hearing, on 20 January 2003, Mr Ladsky told me "Better luck next time" The complaint from Mr Ladsky generated a letter from Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator (NB !!!!), dated 27 January 2003 in which he wrote:
Very clearly, no concern here about: "acting only on the basis of established facts" (The 11 July 2002 reply to me from the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority). And, obviously, another of the Chair's comment in his 11 July 2002 letter that I must
did not apply in this instance either. Moreover, whereas complaints (spread over time) against Mr Ladsky by at least five residents are not recorded, his complaint against me is! Funny that! My assessment of this: COMPLICITY Note also the threat in Neil Watson's letter:
Message? 'Do whatever Andrew Ladsky wants, including paying him whatever he aks you - or else we'll get you'? Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator, asked me in his 27 January 2003 letter to contact him "to clarify this situation" .
My not responding led to another letter dated 6 February 2003 from Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator: "...please contact me" . When I replied by recorded delivery on 11 February 2003 asking for precise details - in writing - of the accusation, there was NO (official) follow-up whatsoever by the police. Why not? Obvious: it was another set-up. Conclusion: I - the victim - end-up being treated as though I am the criminal (breaches under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are punishable by imprisonment), whereas the criminal ends-up being treated as though he is the victim. That's the 'great' English police! In light of events, I hold the view that Kensington and Chelsea police committed an offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Please note that I had brought Kensington & Chelsea Police to the attention of my then Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Portillo, in my pack to him dated 27 May 2002 - from which (on page 18) I quote:
Please, note also that in the pack to Mr Portillo, I also report that I have been the victim of harassment, intimidation and assault. I also state that other residents, as well as Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau, have, likewise suffered harassment and intimidation by Mr Ladsky. Determined to implement his 3 January 2003 threat "I am going to get you this year", Mr Ladsky also asked his solicitor, Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), to join in 'on the act' (as Ms Ayesha Salim had done when two of my fellow leaseholders had reported Mr Ladsky for harassment and intimidation to the same police station) - by sending me a highly defamatory and threatening letter on 4 February 2003, stating among others that its client would
(3) In 2007 Kensington & Chelsea police resorted to making malicious accusations against me to my website Host - falsely implying that I had committed a crime - and branding me a "Nazi"In 2007 Kensington and Chelsea police continued to confirm that it considers me as having no rights. (The events are covered in detail in My Diary 20 Mar 07). Having failed to get my current American website Host to close down my website in spite of ongoing threats of legal action – based on scurrilous accusations against me (Portner and Jaskel # 2) - yet again, Mr Ladsky turned to his ‘friends’ at Kensington & Chelsea police for assistance. Falling over backwards to help him, the assistance took the form of an email, dated 16 March 2007, from Simon J. Dowling, TDC, of the 'Community Safety Unit’ of Kensington & Chelsea police to my website Host stating: “Hi the above site contains some inappropriate use of the words "pigs and monkeys" which are racially abusive terms towards Jewish people from the Nazi's. This is directed at a particular person…” By early 2006, I had become very angry at being monitored and hounded as though I am a terrorist, as well as being physically threatened - and started to use the words ‘pigs and monkeys’ in my online Diary to refer to the scums who are doing this to me (‘pigs’ being the recognised, derogatory term for the police). As I wrote in My Diary, on 23 August 2006 "Visitor to the site, how would you feel if you were subjected to this kind of treatment every single day - any time of day? Add to that threatening behaviour” In addition, by then, I had already lost all respect for the police as a consequence of my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002 and 2003. Clearly with the objective of scaring my website Host into closing down my site, in his 16 March 2007 email, Simon Dowling implied that I had committed a crime – without providing evidence in support, as he wrote: “I am the police officer dealing with this crime. I would therefore be grateful if this site could be taken down” As a result of being challenged by my website Host who asked “Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?” in his 20 March 2007 reply, Simon Dowling backed down stating “…yes there are laws relating to false reporting…If you are unable to close the site down I will let the victim know as there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident” – while still no providing evidence in support of his accusation. Demonstrating outrageous racism and xenophobia, Simon Dowling labelled me a “Nazi” by writing in the same email of 20 March 2007 "The producer of this website is franco-german in origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime" Clearly, Simon Dowling breached, among others, the Metropolitan Police Service’s policy stated at the bottom of his email of 16 March 2007: “It is the policy of the MPS that: MPS personnel…must not use MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail (e-mail) messages or attachments: containing racist, homophobic, sexist, defamatory, offensive, illegal or otherwise inappropriate material”. It is blatantly oblivious from the fact that Simon Dowling backed down as a result of being challenged by my website Host that the objective of the involvement by K&C police was to close down my website. On the upside, it showed my website Host what I am facing in this country. What is also very telling – in light of the implied accusation that I had ‘committed a crime’ - is the fact that Kensington & Chelsea police did NOT contact me. Instead, three days after I gave prominence to the events on my website, the message that "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" was communicated to me through my (then) employer, KPMG [ADD]. By then, five weeks had elapsed since the 20 March 2007 email. Why is it that the police did NOT contact ME about MY website: before, in between, or after its emails?What is also 'fascinating' in light of what I had reported in My Diary - just for 2006, including being physically threatened (*) - let alone in the rest of my website, is that Simon J. Dowling, TDC of Kensington & Chelsea police's 'Community Safety Unit' considered it fit to just send these two emails (16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007) Why is it that the 'Community Safety Unit' did NOT contact me about what I report in My Diary?WHAT KIND OF POLICE 'COMMUNITY SAFETY UNIT' IS THAT? (Others are also raising serious concerns about the police)(*) Example: Mr Neil Mitchell, a whistleblower, also reported being physically threatened. (4) In conclusion, at least five leaseholders have complained to Kensington & Chelsea police against Mr Andrew Ladsky:
'Apparently', the tenant of Leaseholder E also complained against Mr Ladsky sometime in 2004 (see Other Residents section) Are there other leaseholders / their tenants who have reported Mr Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police?Oh! but of course, as Paul Webster, Detective Inspector, wrote in his 23 April 2002 reply to me
And indeed, as Ms Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor captured in her identical letter of 11 October 2001 to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B:
(NB: It 'seems' to me that this 11 October 2002 letter from Mr Salim amounts to harassment and intimidation of witnesses - which is a very serious offence) In addition to which:There is the harassment and intimidation of Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau. Comparison of the 14 November 2001 letter it received from 'Steel Services' with the 25 January 2001 letter Mr Andrew Ladsky sent me (and other leaseholders) suggests the same originator: same layout, same typeface, same writing style. (Another letter in the 'same style', from 'Steel Services', dated 2 January 2001 was sent to Leaseholder A, the Elderly Resident) (NOTE at October 2006: In its 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP, Portner and Jaskel has 'helpfully' confirmed what I knew from the time of what I view as the vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident: its client is Mr Andrew Ladsky) And the police's position is that: "there is not enough evidence to take action against Mr Ladsky" ??? Compare this with events in 2003 when Mr Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him" And add to that my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2007 (My Diary 16 March 2007)
(5) The outcome is that it is 'I' the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME who ends-up with a police record. On 28 May 2009 I filed a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998I assume from the 27 January 2003 letter:
that I have a police record. On 28 May 2009, I sent a Subject Access Request to the police, under the Data Protection Act 1998. It has 40 days to reply. At the time of launching my website, I wrote that, under the Freedom of Information Act, I had right of access to information held about me by the police. While the relevant Act is Data Protection, the rest of this section, written at the time, is nonetheless worth highlighting. 4 December 2006 article in The Guardian, "Afraid of the daylight" (back-up extracts):
(I note that Mr John Prescott (subsequent note: Head of Housing at the time) does not feature as one of the parties with 'clearance rights' - see below as well as Mr John Prescott # 3 and the Home Office ) Judging from the article in The Independent of 15 December 2006, headed "Blair questioned by police on day of 'burying bad news' ", Lord Falconer (then Head of the DCA) is pressing ahead with ensuring that his employer i.e. the taxpayer is kept in the dark as to what fortress government gets up to:
(6) I saw no point reporting the various parties to the police for committing criminal offences(When I first wrote this section, I wrote for "committing - allegedly - criminal offences". Although not a lawyer, the evidence that has accumulated since leads me to conclude that I can now remove 'allegedly': see My Diary 22 Nov 08: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS; examples of breach of statutes amounting to criminal offences) In light of my first-hand experience with the police, when, in reply to my 20 December 2004 complaint against Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, the Law Society stated in its 8 February 2005 reply that my "alleged criminal offences should be reported to the police" - I saw no point doing this. I captured this in my 20 February 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman. And I concluded the same thing when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors took a similar line in its 1 March 2005 reply to my 2 February 2005 complaint against Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones. I have been proven right as, in August 2008, the RICS was of the view that "No doubt, Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you" (RICS # 12) i.e. follow the example of its 'regulator', the RICS which threatened me with defamation proceedings in an attempt to censor me (RICS # 11 , # 12). This evidence, added to the standard 'GET LOST!' to ALL my complaints / 'cries for help' lead to the obvious conclusion that, had I filed a complaint with the police against Martin Russell Jones, the only thing that would have happened is that I would have been sent from pillar to post - until I eventually gave up (e.g. my experience with the Court Service in 2004, and in 2008 - WLCC from point # 18 ). At the end of the day: behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil, 'they' ALL close rank in their network of symbiotic relationships. But, at least, since c. Autumn 2008, I no longer feel a lone voice - as there has been a massive surge of people arriving at the same conclusions. (7) Additional food for thought...... It seems that if Mr Ladsky was 11 years old, I and the other residents 'might' have been able to get an ASBO (Anti-social behaviour order) placed on him. The attached Daily Mail article of 6 June 2005 reported such a case
Clearly, there is no point referring this question to the Home Office . Indeed, in August 2003, I copied it on each of the dozen (identical) letters I sent to various media (e.g. The Guardian ) in which I referred to my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police, its 27 August 2003 reply stated that it had forwarded my letter to Mr Prescott's Office "for a suitable reply" . Translation: "Get lost!" It is interesting to note that landlord-tenant related matters involving the police were de-facto referred to Mr Prescott's office. Had Mr Prescott issued directives to the Home Office on how the police should handle complaints by leaseholders against their landlord? Have directives been issued which include harassment and intimidation of 'troublesome' leaseholders who insist on exerting their statutory rights and common law rights? Given events, I consider this to be a fair question for me to ask. (See My Diary from the summer of 2005) My seven-month battles with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002, and subsequently with the Police Complaints Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority have cost me c. 100 hours of my life (= nearly THREE WEEKS, based on a 35-hour week) And the most unbelievable part of it is that it is 'I' the INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME who, it seems has ended with a police record Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress - and protection on this island'? I stand up to what I stated in the introduction to this site.
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA POLICE AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . (8) I wonder what 'punishment' awaits me for 'daring' to capture my experience with the policeWhy am I saying that? In addition to my first-hand experience - as detailed above - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I draw your attention to what happened to the Canadian Lady for "doing the right thing" in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes. Note at February 2008: In addition to the action by Kensington & Chelsea police in March 2007, there have been other concerted efforts - see the introduction to My Diary 2008 And of course, I, the "Nazi", have continued to be closely monitored see My Diary home: 'Who is having me monitored?' ; 'my mobile phone' - in continuing breach of my Human Rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998:
It 'may be' appropriate to state that I am repeating the same question at 2 January 2009 (9) Additional information on Kensington police
The Times , 16 September 2003 "Police tried to destroy me, says cleared officer - A FOUR-YEAR corruption investigation into a top-ranking police officer collapsed yesterday, leaving taxpayers with a bill of up to Pounds 5 million (US$8.8 million) " "Superintendent Ali Dizaei.was the focus of the biggest investigation of a policeman, involving 100 officers, MI5, the Inland Revenue and police in the United States and Canada . He was trailed, bugged and filmed " "The officer had been accused of being a drugtaker, a threat to national security and a friend of drug traffickers and money launderers" "But the marathon inquiry ended in ignominy for the Metropolitan Police when the only remaining actual charge, fiddling Pounds 270 (US$480) mileage expenses, was dropped " "Dr Dizaei [said] .I find it astonishing and extraordinary that taxpayers' hard-earned funds could be abused in this way." "His defence described the investigation as having "Orwellian proportions". "One undercover officer joined his gym hoping to entrap him over drugs" "Police spent Pounds 15,000 (US$26,500) renting a flat in Kensington as part of the officer's cover story" "Surveillance teams followed Dr Dizaei for 91 days. Police recorded 3,500 telephone calls and monitored 250 hours of conversation . CCTV cameras watched him all over London" "Police checked his claims to a married man's allowance and even went to his dry cleaner to see if he got a discount " "The jury cleared him in two hours" "Charges that Dr Dizaei had fiddled mileage expenses were dropped at the Old Bailey yesterday, two weeks before a second trial was due. The CPS had realised that it could probably claim that only Pounds 270 (US$480) might have been fiddled" "It also admitted that Dr Dizaei...may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700)" ***** The Guardian , 20 March 2004 "By the time he was tried last year, all charges had been dropped, bar two: perverting the course of justice (over where his car had been parked) (NB!!!) and misconduct in public office (relating to a pounds 270 (US$480) expenses claim)" "After an estimated pounds 7 million (US$12.4 million) of public money had been spent on the investigation, he was acquitted on both counts at two Old Bailey trials" "...the prosecution was forced to admit that, rather than overclaiming pounds 270 (US$480) from the Black Police Association (BPA), Dizaei was owed around pounds 400 (US$700) " "Dizaei [said] "Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine there were 44 people you worked with who got up every morning for three years , with all the executive power at their disposal, all the money they wanted.." The 44 people he refers to are the officers who formed Operation Helios, the team created to investigate him in 1999" (NB. I know exactly what Superintendent Dizaei felt like, having his life totally invaded. See My Diary , in particular from the summer of 2005) "At his trial last year, documents disclosed to the defence revealed the lengths to which Helios officers were prepared to go to find something of which they could accuse Dizaei." "...Fly to south of France to obtain statements from a concert-goer re sale of concert tickets" "...Trace and take statement from every taxi driver who has given defendant a receipt since 1998."
And the extent of this is an unknown quantityIndeed, the Sunday Telegraph, in its 18 June 2006 edition, reported:
I wonder why the Home Office has "failed to maintain proper books and records in 2004-2005" ? The Home Office started to come under fire in April 2006 from several corners, leading to the head being replaced. The new head was reported as saying that he viewed the Home Office as "not fit for purpose'' This statement led a journalist at the Daily Express to write (16 June 2006)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with this journalist. |
