Email this site to a contact

 

"If you are one of our 'brothers', a Masonic landlord wanting to defraud your leaseholders, and some dare stand-up to you: you can count on our protection racket. We will ignore their complaints to us; process false "crime reports" against them; work in tandem with your resources in hounding them, tracking them, harassing them, persecuting them; complement the retribution service by monitoring and interfering with all their means of communication.

HER MAJESTY'S kensington, chelsea, Notting Hill Police, Met Commissioner, Directorate of Professional Standards; Independent Police Complaints Commission - Home

 

(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: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for the actions and lack of action by her officers, high level 'management', 'regulators' and ministers, is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom ALL concerned in Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police, high level 'management', 'regulators' and ministers...

joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

...to do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the-board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Secondly, because he is 'Jewish' and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.

 

In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

2002 - My complaint against Andrew David Ladsky

2003 - "Complaint" against me by Ladsky

2007 - "Complaint" against me by Ladsky

2001-04 - Complaints against Ladsky by my fellow leaseholders

2009-11 - My Subject Access Request and Claim against the Met Commissioner

2005 - The 'recommendation' by the Law Society and RICS

A police force that is out of control

  • (8)- (Removed)
  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

This page relates to 'my' local police. The main station is Kensington Police Station, 72-74 Earls Court Road, London W8 6EQ. Others are Chelsea and Notting Hill.

There are (very telling) frequent changes of the 'Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander':

  • He was replaced on 11 Apr 11 by CS Jason Gwillim (sourced from a document reporting on a 'Community and police engagement group' meeting on 23 Mar 11).
  • I want every cop to walk out of this building and be proud of what they do.” = "Proud" of being of very active assistance to a 'certain type' of criminals and, in the process, of being assassins. What a motto for a police station!

I do not know about the previous ones, from the time of my first dealings, in 2002, with these borough's corrupt police stations.

I accuse ALL of the above and their equally vindictive, amoral, ruthless, power-corrupted, ego-crazed monster supremacist subordinates, including director of intelligence (example)...

of being the KEY drivers and assassins behind my being hounded and persecuted on an ongoing basis since at least of 2005.

= of being KEY parties in destroying my life

E.g. In c. summer 2016, on BBC Radio 4, I heard Chris Philips, home office's former head of National Counter Terrorism & Security say, among other:

"Last year, there were 2,000 people on the radar. It's impossible to keep them under surveillance"

"Effectively, the counter terrorist units all work for [!!!] the local police units as well."

Until 2002, in my previous 30+ years in the borough, I had never had any dealings with any of these stations (nor indeed with Her Majesty's police anywhere else in this island-Kingdom).

I am a law-abiding individual; one who has been made to pay a lot of tax in this country by being told that government departments such as the police, would be there for me in time of need.

LIE! From my very first contact with Her Majesty's police (# A, section overview), it has demonstrated that it is at the exclusive service of a certain type of multi-criminals - specifically: Andrew David Ladsky - and, consequently, that it does not give a damn about the rule of law...

thereby acting in the same way as the other part of the 'law enforcement' double act: Her Majesty's judiciary: below: (B)- Breaches of the law; (C)- Overall outcome on me and reasons behind it.

In reading the events captured on this page, consider

(1) Attestation of constables - Form of Declaration (Sch.4 of the Police Act 1996):

"I.........of.........do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people;

and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law"

As stated under s.29 of the Act, it applies to "Every member of a police force maintained for a police area..." (The section also states that this declaration is made "before a justice of the peace")

As to the post of Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, it is allocated by royal appointment e.g. "Bernard Hogan-Howe picked as new Met police Commissioner", Guardian, 12 Sep 11 (= NO voting by Londoners for the appointment of a Commissioner)

Back to list

 

(A)- Sections overview - Police

Section 1

In 2002, following receiving numerous anonymous phone calls, I filed a complaint with Her Majesty's Chelsea police, identifying Andrew David Ladsky as the likely perpetrator / instigator. Concurrently, I also reported suffering other forms of harassment from him.

Subsequent events (see Key Points) provide irrebutable evidence that Ladsky was behind the calls, including making at least some himself, and that Kensington police CID went out of its way to protect him.

In spite of 'the evidence' contained in the "crime report", the police classified it as the calls being made "By Person Unknown" and "No Evidence" - and endorsed this with "Classification confirmed".

Kensington & Chelsea police did the same thing in relation to at least 4 of my fellow leaseholders when they (separately, over time) reported Andrew Ladsky for repeated harassment and intimidation. Hence, as in my case, criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

(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).

My battling at the local level, of course - in vain - led me to send 'a cry for help' to the then Police Complaints Authority, as well as to the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority - resulting in the typical public sector outcome - added to no doubt, Masonic influence: closing of rank.

*****

Section 2

This section (see Key Points) covers Andrew David Ladsky so-called 'complaint' against me in 2003 to Her Majesty's Chelsea police that "[I had] used abusive language towards him".

What happened: as I was coming out of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp', totally ignoring him, he provoked me by saying: "Better luck next time!", followed by a sarcastic laugh. I told him 'where he could go'.

I assumed he was referring to the impending then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 'hearing' on 5 Feb 03, and that he had it ‘sewn-up’.

(Subsequent events with the tribunal, including 'its' 'summary of the case', which demonstrate glaring collusion, complicity and conspiring with Ladsky and his aides - proved my assessment to be correct).

Keen to continue helping a 'brother', on the same day, 25 Jan 03, Chelsea police proceeded immediately with filing a criminal charge against me of a "Confirmed" "Substantiated Offence of Harassment" against me - to make it 'stick', by adding the lie that I had 'a history of doing this' (*) I discovered this as a result of getting the "crime report".

(*) To count as 'an offence', s.7(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires the conduct to have taken place on at least 2 occasions.

To seal 'the criminal offence' against me, it describes Ladsky as "my neighbour" 'who has - 'of course' - 'nothing' to do with Jefferson House (examples of irrebutable proof to the contrary: CKFT-Intro) - and 'therefore' with the [fraudulent] 'service charge' demand ( Extortion).

Further, "[I am] like that because [I do] not want to pay the service charge".

Having first placed this 'very convenient' "crime report" on its system, the follow-up from Her Majesty's police was a "Crime Investigator" sending me a bullying, threatening letter of 27.01.03 telling me, in effect, that I had better shut up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' "or there may be further consequences"...

...thereby breaching the Malicious Communications Act.

Laughing my head off from visualizing the scene: a man, standing in a police station, saying: "Mr Policeman, a woman swore at me", and at the police for having no sense of the ridicule, I ignored the letter.

However, a chaser letter of 06.02.03 from the "Crime Investigator", led me to send an 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me".

He ignored my letter and, on the day he received it, closed down the report falsely claiming that I had 'not responded'.

Hence: Her Majesty's police has denied me the right to defend myself against the false, defamatory, scurrilous, malicious accusations against me and opinions of me in its 2003 so-called "crime report" - thereby breaching several legislation. WHY?

*****

Section 3

In 2007, the police, in this instance, Her Majesty's 'Notting Hill police', 'improved further' on its performance by not contacting me at any point in time following another so-called 'complaint' against me by Andrew David Ladsky. (See Key Points)

Instead 'it' (= on order of the Masonic mafia) sent this 16.03.07 malicious, libellous, xenophobic email to my website Host in which - without any evidence in support - it accused me of having 'committed a crime' by stating: "Website with anti semitic (sic) views" and: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime".

(From the report, as well 2 emails sent to my website Host (16.03.07 and 20.03.07): the theme of this 'complaint' are the false, malicious, defamatory, vicious and scurrilous accusations and opinions of me that:

Further, in addition to having "a lot of slanderous comments on the site mainly directed at Mr Ladsky but also Kensington & Chelsea police and even Members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Also against solicitors and many others...

....I 'evidently' "suffer from mental issues" 'because', on my website, I report my belief that "[I am] being followed by either the police or Mr Ladsky"...

and "This is not the case" (proof that I am: Persecution # 2 ; Scum gallery ; my 19.07.11 Home Office Witness Statement)

- 'demonstrating' that "[I am] obviously extremely paranoid"....

... and 'further proof of this' is that "[I] sleep with a knife by me in the bed" (My Diary 2 Aug 06; Intro)...

...'leading' to 'the need' to "speak to social services to see if they are aware of [me]"

(NB. Considering what they have ALL done to me since 2002, I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [extremely serious] mental issues").

(Note that my objecting to the above (among many others), was described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how sick and insane the British State has become).

As in the case of the 2003 "crime report", not one shred of evidence is supplied in support of the accusations against me - because it does not exist.

For further proof of this, see the Queen's Bench Division page, # 4(6), for how the twisted, corrupt psychos have attempted to create it.

For the benefit of the numerous parties - not aware of the black-on-white evidence against Andrew Ladsky - and to whom the police gives access to its reports, ALL of the above is endorsed as being the 'truth and nothing but the truth' as - in spite of not contacting me at any point point in time...

...- the police has "no suspicion of false reporting" - thereby 'justifying' its holding a criminal charge against me of a “Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion”

Hence, yet again, Her Majesty's police has denied me the right to defend myself against the false, defamatory, scurrilous, malicious accusations against me and opinions of me - this time in its 2007 so-called "crime report" - thereby breaching several legislation. WHY?

What prompted this so-called 'complaint' and "crime report" was fury by Ladsky and his mafia, and the Masonic network (QB # 4 (6)5) at my 'daring' to set-up the website reporting chapter and verse of my case (to avoid being faced by proceedings) - in the process exposing all the miscreants.

Not only had he and his mob (as a result of his own doing) been exposed, he had also led to the exposure of the henchmen who helped him. (The 'one for all and all for one' Masonic motto meant that they immediately rallied round).

In fact, as detailed in e.g. the Overview on the home page, Ladsky went into overdrive within 3 weeks of my launching the site. As also detailed, in the month preceding his 'complaint', his latest actions against me (with Masonic network backing him) were:

*****

Section 5

Under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, I submitted a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to the Metropolitan Police Service' Public Access Office. Ignoring a large part of my Request, it sent me an heavily redacted version of the 3 "crime reports", referred to above: 2002, 2003 and 2007.

The section (snapshots under Doc library from # 4.7) discusses my soul-destroying battles - in vain - over the following 10 months, to get the police to implemented my rights in the processing of the "crime reports".

It entailed escalating my complaint to Her Majesty's then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, and HM's then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson.

It eventually led to the involvement of the Police' Directorate of 'Professional Standards' that opted to refer my complaint for "dispensation" 'to the ''Independent' Police Complaints Commission' (in inverted commas, as I am absolutely convinced that its actions were dictated by the police / carried out by the police - see my Comments to the 29.07.11 IPCC Order 'from' HM's Master Eyre, following my Claim against the IPCC).

Endorsing the police's totally irrelevant use of Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (the trump card used to avoid dealing with complaints), 'the IPCC' - illegally - granted "dispensation" to HM's police from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 ('DPA') (extracts) (Yes!).

Subsequently discovering that I could submit a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and that it imposes a requirement to "respond within 21 days", I concluded that I had found the solution to my problem.

I sent a 02.06.09 s.10 Notice to HM's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police - supported by a 60-page document - clearly detailing the breaches of the Act and my rights. He ignored it.

It left me with only one option: filing a claim, as I had warned on several occasions I would do if my demands were not met. For a snapshot of subsequent events, see below, Overall outcome on me.

For the content of the remaining sections, see the Sections list, above)
 

(B)- Breaches of the law - Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police:

In - my NON-LAWYER opinion these police stations committed breaches of the following legislation, some amounting to committing criminal offences against me.

HOWEVER, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, rejected ALL of my 19.04.11 Claim in which they were contained - and was backed up on this by some of Her Majesty's Queen's Bench judiciaries:

summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; snapshot, below, under Overall outcome on me. Events are also summarised in the Overview to the site, under # 18.

As this - unlawful - outcome is due to corruption, that entailed conniving and conspiring between Her Majesty's police and judiciary - I include, below, snapshots of my position covered in my Claim.

Indeed, I contend that, looking at the very damning evidence, it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to arrive at the conclusions I stated in my Claim.

In the context of my drawn-out battles against the so-called "crime reports", I issued the police and then judiciary with a dozen key documents (pt # 1).

Of these, I highlight my 17.10.11 Appeal Request (QB # 4.7(3)), as it pulls together the main parts of my previous documents - as I discuss: (1)- the main issues in each of the "crime reports"; (2)- comment on the Orders from Her Majesty's Master Eyre and Justice Lang (below); (3)- discuss my legal position by referring to legislation (of which I included extracts in the Appendix), as well as to precedents.

•  Data Protection Act 1998 (extracts):

•  European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC

Totally ignoring the requirements:

  • Recital 28 - “…any processing of personal data must be lawful and fair to the individuals concerned
  • Directive 14 - "A data subject must be granted the right to “object at any time on compelling legitimate grounds..." (more extracts under pt # 5.3)

•  Malicious Communications Act 1998 - (extracts) (= criminal offences):

  • (3) - With the unlawful objective of attempting to get the closure of my website (# 3, key pt (3)(1)(5))...
  • (4) - Following my initial response of 13.08.09 to the "crime reports" (pt # 5.1), the letters I then received:
  • (i)- 25.08.09 from Jenna Neville, Public Access Office, claiming that "no further information can be provided" (pt # 5.1) (v. sending me, subsequently, a less redacted version of the 3 "crime reports");
  • - that "[I had] quite clearly expressed my concerns about accuracy to Jenna Neville" and "to contact the Information Commissioner if [I] was dissatisfied with her response" (pt # 5.2);
  • (iii)- 20.11.09, also from McSorley: "I do not accept that there has been any "gross misconduct" by any of our officers...that TDC Dowling made "malicious, scurrilous or libellous allegations" when contacting your website host";
  • "I am satisfied that the crime reports represent an accurate account of what police were told at the time even if you do not agree with what was said";
  • "Consequently I...will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports...unless enforcement notice is served by the Information Commissioner." (pt # 5.2);
  • and including 'the gem': "your complaint has been made only because you have been unable to obtain the result you desire through the Public Access Office" (pt # 5.3).

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (see extracts) (= criminal offence):

I repeat all the entries under Malicious Communications Act, above - and add the following:

  • This, in turn, led me to escalate my complaint to the then Police Complaints Authority (# 1, Bckgrnd), then to Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the then Metropolitan Police Authority (# 1 , Bckgrnd) - ALL with the same result: 'Get lost!'
  • (3)- From Aug 09 until I filed my 19.04.11 Claim, ALL I approached / had contact with in the police - with my legitimate complaints against the "crime reports", crying out for help:
  • (i)- the Public Access Office (pt # 5.1);
  • (iii)- Steve McSorley, local 'Professional Standards' (pt # 5.2);
  • (iv)- DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of 'Professional Standards' (pt # 5.3);
  • (v)- the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, as well as Alan Johnson, Home Secretary (pts # 5.2 , # 5.3);
  • (vi)- the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Legal Services (QB # 2.2)...
  • - wilfully, perversely and repeatedly ignored my very compelling evidence against the so-called "crime reports".
  • (4)- Post filing my Claim, HM's Sir Paul Stephenson continued to do this - in the process blatantly lying in his Defence (QB # 4.2) and in his Application to have my Claim struck out (QB # 4.3).
  • - in spite of my making 7 attempts at getting them to investigate. In the process, 'spitting in my face' by telling me:
  • (i)- “We have to capture everything that is reported, but not unlawful information against people; that’s a breach of the Data Protection Act”.
  • (ii)- "We have to keep information [i.e. the so-called "crime reports"] in case you commit an offence and end-up in court" (My Diary 17 Oct 10).
  • Post filing my Claim, Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson lied as to what I had been told by the police at the time. I was able to prove it as I had secretly recorded the conversation (pt # 6).
  • for many years, directing the Royal Mail sorting office on the interception of my post: snapshot Doc library # 5.7.

•  Defamation Act (see extracts)

•  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998):

  • BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

•  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) (extracts), and

•  Intelligence Services Act 1994 (extracts)

•  Misconduct in public office ; Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 ; Police (Conduct) Regulations ; Police Reform Act 2002

•  Equality Act 2010 (extracts)

In the context of my Oct 10 complaints (pt # 6) - Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police also committed breaches under this Act (ALL of the following were in force by 1 Oct 10):

  • s.13(1)- ‘Direct discrimination’ (ditto);

While I raised this in my 17.03.11 Pre-action letter (QB # 4 (2)) - aside from the fact that, by the time I filed my 19.04.11 Claim, I had missed the 6 months deadline by 2 days - I did not include claims under this Act, preferring to focus instead on my European Convention rights).

 

(C)- Overall outcome on me and reasons behind it - Police

(See above: Breaches of the law; below: C(1)- Objective ; C(2)- Implementation)

Without a shred of evidence in support – what I have seen of the above "crime reports" (snapshots: Breach Data Protection Act), they falsely and maliciously portray me as:

...leaving the key beneficiary:

  • - to whom 'I', 'of course', represent 'a risk',

- currently enjoying the fruit of his criminal activities - while laughing his head off at me for having his 2003 and 2007 so-called ‘complaints’ against me remaining in their current state.

WHY?

  • (1)- Because during my 2 years of battling following my Subject Access Request, Her Majesty's police persistently ignored the mountain of black-on-white evidence I supplied it with, including irrebutable evidence of criminality by the Ladsky mafia

These monsters, rotten to the core so-called 'law enforcers' made - me - pay:

...thereby leaving Her Majesty's police with 4 'trophies' to add to its database as 'evidence' in support of its packs of lies "crime reports" (from Section 1, above ; snapshots under Breach Data Protection Act).

= Leaving ALL the assassins with carte blanche to continue - totally unhindered - with their relentless criminal psychological harassment regime against me - in order to achieve their below objective of destroying me.

(NOTE: (1)- The police's absolutely outrageous excuse for retaining the "crime reports" in their current state: # 5.4, below); (stated in its Application for 'dispensation' to the IPCC: QB # 5 (1)).

(2)- Under para.41 of his 23.05.11 Defence, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson had the nerve to state (no doubt laughing his head off) that...

if "[I was] dissatisfied with the MPS' handling of or investigation of [my] allegations against Mr Ladsky in October, the proper course of action [was for me] to complain to the MPS and/or the IPCC".

As I wrote under para.142 of my 19.07.11 MPS Witness Statement, and para.82.(2) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request (re. my 30 Aug 11 Application for Permission to Appeal):

"In the light of my experience with the Met Commissioner, IPCC and Home Secretary, as detailed in this Witness Statement: there was clearly no point my doing that".

And under para.143: "As it stands, the outcome is that no matter how dire my situation, there is no point my approaching the police (nor indeed the Home Office) - unless I want to let myself be subjected to even more humiliation and discrimination.

So, among others, Ladsky can continue to do whatever he wants to me – in total disregard of the law of the land..."

 

(C(1))- Overall outcome on me - cont'd-2)

WHY the blind determination to continue to - unlawfully - process these false, highly vicious, malicious, and defamatory "crime reports" (and, no doubt, even far more damaging data I have not seen)?

To dish out 'retribution'

(1)- Because I dared’ to interfere with Andrew David Ladsky's above objectives - by 'daring' to stand up to him and his gang of racketeers' criminal activities...

- because they are very clearly positioned in that part of the Venn diagram where criminal Jewish property mafia - a sizeable and notorious group in the residential leasehold sector - and Masonic network overlap - and Jews have a hold over this kingdom.

(2)- Because having giving in once, in 2003, to his fraudulent demand (Overview # 3) - "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end" thereby paying money I did not legally owe either - I was not prepared to do it again when he not only repeated the fraudulent demand, he also added to it (Overview # 6)

(3)- Because I have since 'dared' to stand-up and fight against being, yet again, defrauded (Overview # 11 and # 12 ; Martyn Gerrard summaries)

(4)- Because in the process of doing this, not only am I 'daring' to stand-up to the Ladsky mafia, I am also 'daring' to stand to the corrupt, monster elements in the British Establishment who, for mutual protection, all collude and conspire with each other:

police, judiciaries, the professions, etc e.g. summaries of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints- Document library (The police also attacks its own e.g. John Buttress).

(5)- Because after 5 years of facing a gigantic wall of blind eyes and deaf ears, of being used, abused, debased and humiliated by being treated like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - I 'dared' to launch my website reporting chapter and verse of my case (Overview # 8)...

- in the process 'daring' to upset the British Establishment, as well as its protégé Andrew David Ladsky.

(6)- Because I 'dare' to not fall apart, crumble into into heap from being subjected to his horrendous, extremely traumatic, abusive treatment - concurrently, 'daring' to not lick their jackboots 'in gratitude' for the life-destroying treatment (see below)

(7)- Because, last, but, by far, not least: of my profile (below).

HOW? (see next entry, # C(2))

 

(C(2))- (Overall outcome on me, cont'd-3)

HOW are the false, highly vicious, malicious, and defamatory "crime reports" used for 'dishing out the retribution' (above)

They are used as 'justification' for:

(1)- Unlawfully - stalking me, hounding me, tracking me, harassing me, persecuting me and monitoring me - on a daily basis (Persecution # 2); (overview, My Diary # 2.1).

(See, above, Introduction, the security services "working for" the local police).

Doing this by operating as a fully integrated team with Ladsky's thugs - and with their mates in HM British Transport Police assisting them, not only through the CCTV spy system, but also with helicopters.

There are many examples proving absolutely the involvement of the local police mafia; see also Scum gallery.

(2)- Unlawfully - monitoring and interfering with ALL my means of communication (overview, My Diary # 2.2):

  • Post - including stealing important post e.g. a letter informing me of a family funeral (done in conjunction with intercepting voice messages, and an e-mail) ; stealing ALL my financial post.

The police intercepts my post and gives it to Ladsky / tell him the content.

  • E-mails - interception and retention of important emails.

The police gives Ladsky the content of my emails and the email address of my correspondents - including to help him set-up a trap for me.

In late Mar 13, following intercepting an important email from my website Host, knowing that I would not be able to access my Host's server to update my website, one of the local police mafia thugs came and sat next to me in the local internet cafe. Barely able to hide his glee, he turned to me 'asking for help' in doing something.

  • Hacking into my computer - including attempting to delete my website, in 2014 - which was carried out with the help of one of the local police mafia.

(3)- Unlawfully - using plants with the objective of trapping me.

E.g. in 2008, desperate to make the above false accusations stick against me, one of the local police mafia's henchmen came to a local internet cafe (same as above example) to provoke me, by telling me: "Hitler should have killed all the Jews, 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)?).

(As reported above, Her Majesty's Queen's Bench judiciaries then picked-up the baton).

(4)- Unlawfully - bugging my apartment.

(Many examples relating to the above are captured in my 19.07.11 Home Office Witness Statement; my Comments are attached to the 09.08.11 Home Office Order - which is covered under QB # 6(2)).

As can be seen from the examples under Persecution # (1)(4), to these are added many other forms of criminal psychological harassment by the British Establishment, including the police,...

and by Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - that include these more recent examples of reprisal.

One of the more recent examples of criminal psychological harassment by the local police mafia, include, on 14 Jun 14, having one of its thugs standing in front of my windows to communicate an implied death threat:

the lyrics attached to what was written on his T-shirt include: "We kill em all , zip up the bag, bring em to the morgue".

It sums up their shared objective in doing the above: causing me harm through their ongoing, horrendous, life-destroying criminal psychological harassment:

  • failing my not committing suicide / dying from ill-health

In further support of my position, I cite the comment from Her Majesty's Sergeant Avison, on 17 Oct 10:

We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court

- to which I replied: False information, that’s what you are planning on using against me in court?”

(Contrast that with what is contained against Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, under e.g. Extortion - and the police's failure to take action against them).

(I reported Avison's comment under para.125b of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim. In his 23.05.11 Defence, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner denied it.

I reasserted it under para.14 of my 14.06.11 Reply, having demonstrated, in the preceding paragraphs that the police had lied in its Defence (section 6, below ; QB # 4(2)3)).

(In this context, I also cite the - proven by experience - fact that the police et.al. in the British Establishment will have no difficulty finding one or more 'accommodating' medical 'specialists': My Diary 2009 - Medical).

Their abuse of power is such that it has driven these thoroughly evil, rotten to the core mafia monsters to insanity. In fact, based on my religious beliefs, these monsters are more than evil: they are satanic.

(Drawing on information contained in Private Eye # 1401, and on the above)...

- I want to know WHO are the multi-criminal vermin monsters in Kensington & Chelsea police and higher up in the Metropolitan Police Service with responsibility for orchastrating this persecution against me since at least 2005.

= Assassins who have and continue to destroy my life since then.

 

Up to 2002, I had trust and faith in Her Majesty's police (part of my (naïve) trust and faith in 'the system' of this island "Kingdom").

In my 04.08.02 letter to Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the then Metropolitan Police Authority, I wrote: "...my dealings with the police in recent months, have led me to totally - and for ever - lose my confidence in the British police" .

Unsurprisingly, my experience since then, starting with Kensington and Chelsea police (added to that of others) has increased my feelings exponentially - leading me to now feel absolute, utter disgust and extreme loathing and repulsion - as well as totally justified in using the derogatory term of 'pigs' to refer to them ("2007 crime report"). I can't bear the sight of ANY of them.

(No wonder it trains the police force of oppressive regimes e.g. “British police training Libyan force ‘insult to memory of PC Yvonne Fletcher’”, (The Daily Telegraph, 18 Sep 09); Saudi Arabia (Private Eye Nov 16)).

The overall word I have to sum-up my experience since 2002 with Her Majesty's police - as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - with the named individuals

  • (ii)- within the police executive and Directorate of 'Professional Standards' in 2009-10;

C O R R U P T (*)

In the process, demonstrating, in addition to total disregard for the law of the land (as does the other part of the 'law enforcement' double-act: Her Majesty's judiciary), these satanic (*), rotten to the core mafia monsters have - and continue - to demonstrate extreme cruelty, viciousness, sadism and perversion.

In other words: from exactly the same mould as satanic (*), Rachman Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - and, in one word: A S S A S S I N S.

(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)

(*) Corruption in the police is widely recognised - see # 9.2 below, and more recent examples on the Media page.

In fact, it is found all the way up to Cabinet ministers. It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Note also that Her Majesty's police has blatantly obvious 'Memorandums of Understanding' for the protection of 'certain crooks' (copy).

Back to list

 

(D)- My profile

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

(NB: I included a summary of my below profile under para.76.i. of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, filed in the Queen's Bench Division)

Looking at the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by the police and related services (snapshots above) - with undeniable endorsement at the highest level within the executive (Met Commissioner and Home Secretary - including post filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: Home Secretary; Met Commissioner),...

- it is blatantly obvious that this discrimination, tormenting, persecution, harassment, bullying and humiliation - stem from (in addition to their, typically, extremely sick psyches) my:

  • In fact, like the rest of the Establishment, the police targets anybody it assesses as being unable to fight back: Media page)
  • (2)- Marital status: single; no family in this country

= A profile which, to the British Establishment and its hangers-on who perceive themselves (backed-up by their henchmen) as being entitled to self-enrichment at the expose of the 'little people'...

- means that somebody 'like me' can be treated as a piece of dirt, a non-entity outside the protection of the law and the State, who does not have the right to have rights - there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL.

(*) As evidenced by my experience and that of many others (e.g. Media page; Maurice Kirk; Victims Unite; locking-up 'inconvenient people', classifying them as "domestic extremists" for 'daring' to engage in peaceful protests), in this country, it is the law-abiding, 'little people' who tend to have most to fear from the police.

(Even a former MI5 Chief was reported as saying, in 2009: “We now have more to fear from our police state than from terrorism”). This is especially the case if, like me, you 'dare' stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime. (Whistleblowers are pursued ruthlessly).

Hence: in this island-Kingdom that "has a long and exemplary record on human rights", 'certain' (*) criminals are protected at the expense of their victims.

In fact, they are described by the police, in so-called "crime reports" as "the victims", while their victims are described as "the criminals" (above, Overall outcome on me).

(*) 'Certain', as, for doing similar things, on a much smaller scale, others end-up with prison sentences of up to 32 months: Advisors # 11.

Back to list

 

(E)- Police legislation and regulations

In reading about my experience with Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police, consider the following extracts from the Code of conduct / Standards of Professional Behaviour included in the Conduct Regulations, in force at various times of my dealings with these police stations since 2002 - including events captured in My Diary in Oct 10, and following filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim against the Met Commissioner.

(NB: There will have been changes since).

These Regulations apply to ALL police officers.

They are issued, BY Her Majesty's Secretary of State (powers under e.g. s.50 of the Police Act 1996, s.23 and s.105 of the Police Reform Act 2002), as subordinate legislation in the form of Statutory Instruments.

s.50 of the 1996 Act describes the Regulations as "provision with respect to- (e) the conduct, efficiency and effectiveness of members of police forces and the maintenance of discipline".

(Pursuant to s.84(9) of the Police Act 1996, they were "laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament")

 

The Secretary of State's powers to issue Guidance are comprised under s.87 of the 1996 Act, which states:

(1) "...police authorities, chief officers of police and other members of police forces...shall have regard to any such guidance in the discharge of their functions"

It is crystal clear from this legislation that - regardless of rank - police officers, including community support officers - are NOT at liberty to ignore the Regulations and related Guidance.

As HM's Secretary of State issues these Regulations and Guidance, you would expect that s/he would ensure compliance.

Ditto re. the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) that has a statute-based duty to "secure the public's confidence in the handling of complaints made about the conduct of the police".

My extensive first-hand experience, since 2002, demonstrates - irrebutably - that the police IS at liberty to ignore not only police-related legislation and regulations, but also other types of legislation...

...- and does so with the undeniable approval of Her Majesty's Home Secretary, as well as IPCC - approval that is further endorsed by some Her Majesty's Judiciaries (see Outcome on me, above).

Hence, as with so much other legislation, regulations and 'codes of conduct' (overview of the outcome of my complaints), when it comes to the 'little people' like me: these regulations can only be described as window dressing, a gigantic 'trompe l'oeil' - in 'The island-Kingdom of Make-Believe'...

...because the 'little people' like me "cannot" bring a claim against the police for breach of these regulations (QB # police Breaches of the law)...

...- as, under e.g. the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 and the near-identical provisions in Sch.3 to the 2002 Act, breaches of the Regulations can only be handled internally.

Occasionally, they involve the police's 'poodle', the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (usually as a result of media pressure).

Anything serious, and the police uses the 'Go-past-jail' card 'conveniently' contained in the legislation, of either "resigning" or "retiring" - as evidenced by examples of media reports.

Police (Conduct) Regulations - Code of Conduct

(Re. the following, new Regulations repealed the previous ones - for cases first raised after the new Regulations came into force e.g. if an allegation of misconduct "came to the attention of the appropriate authority" before the 2008 Regulations, the 2004 Regulations apply)

 

Police (Conduct) Regulations1999 - Code of Conduct, Reg.4

Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 - Code of Conduct, Reg.3

Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 - Standards of Professional Behaviour, Reg.3

Date in force

11 March 1999

1 April 2004

1 December 2008

Honesty and integrity

1. "It is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honesty and integrity of police officers. Officers should... avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity"

(As per 1999)

 

"Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position."

Fairness and impartiality

2. "Police officers have a particular responsibility to act with fairness and impartiality in all their dealings with the public..."

(As per 1999)

(Below)

Politeness and tolerance

3. "Officers should treat members of the public...with courtesy and respect, avoiding abusive or deriding attitudes or behaviour... officers must avoid: favouritism of an individual...; all forms of harassment, victimisation or unreasonable discrimination..."

(As per 1999)

Authority, Respect and Courtesy
"Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals."

Equality and Diversity
"Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly."

Use of force and abuse of authority

4. "Officers... should [never] abuse their authority"

(As per 1999)

(Above)

Performance of duties

5. “Officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties…”

(As per 1999)

Duties and Responsibilities
"Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities."

Lawful orders

6. “…officers must…abide by the provisions of Police Regulations. Officers should…oppose any improper behaviour, reporting it where appropriate”

(As per 1999)

Orders and Instructions
“Police officers abide by police regulations…”

Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct “Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour”

General conduct

12. "Whether on or off duty, police officers should not behave in a way which is likely to bring discredit upon the police service"

(As per 1999)

Discreditable Conduct
"Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty."

Reg.3 - 'Interpretation' of the 2004 Regulations states: “conduct matter” "means any matter which is not and has not been the subject of a complaint but in the case of which there is an indication (whether from the circumstances or otherwise) that a person serving with the police may have—(b)-behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings"

While the Notes state, among other:

  • (a)"...the public...[has] the right to expect the highest standards of conduct from [police officers]"
  • (c)"...any allegation of conduct which could, if proved, bring or be likely to bring discredit to the police service should be investigated in order to establish whether or not a breach of the Code has occurred and whether formal disciplinary action is appropriate"

In the Explanatory Notes, the 2008 Conduct Regulations state that they "establish procedures for the taking of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the conduct of members of police forces..."

Reg.3(1) - 'Interpretation and delegation' introduced "new concepts":

  • "Misconduct": "means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour"
  • "Gross misconduct": "means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that dismissal would be justified" If proved, then investigation is mandatory under Reg.12(4).
  • Definition of “conduct”:
  • Conduct” includes acts, omissions and statements (whether actual, alleged or inferred)” (s.29(1));
  • "Conduct matter" - s.12(2) of the 2002 Act states: "In this Part "conduct matter" means (subject to the following provisions of this section, para.2(4) of Schedule 3 and any regulations made by virtue of s.23(2)(d)) any matter which is not and has not been the subject of a complaint but in the case of which there is an indication (whether from the circumstances or otherwise) that a person serving with the police may have- (a) committed a criminal offence; or
    (b) behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings"

(Among the 58 Regulations), Reg.12, 'Assessment of conduct', lists the assessment options: 'misconduct', 'gross misconduct', 'taking no action' - and related actions.

The Explanatory Notes state that "Part 5 deals with the procedures for special case hearings for those cases where there is written or documentary evidence to establish gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities and it is in the public interest for the officer concerned to cease to be a police officer without delay"

Back to list

Concurrent Regulations and Guidance

The following Police Regulations and Guidance are also issued by the Secretary of State.

Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (In force: 11 Mar 04)

The Explanatory Notes state:"The Regulations set out the process to be followed under Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 in relation to complaints against persons serving with the police and misconduct by such persons"

Under Reg.5, 'Recording and reference of conduct matters' "for the purposes of para.11(2) of Sch.3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 ('Recording etc of conduct matters)", the descriptions of conduct include:

"(1)(c) serious corruption, as defined in guidance issued by the Commission" (see IPCC, below);

"(1)(d) a criminal offence or behaviour which is liable to lead to a disciplinary sanction and which in either case was aggravated by discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of a person's race, sex, religion, or other status identified in guidance by the Commission" ;

"(f) conduct whose gravity or other exceptional circumstances make it appropriate to record the matter in which the conduct is involved"

(Reg.3 'Reference of complaints to the Commission' (i.e. the IPCC) contains the same list)

Reg.3, 'Dispensation by the Commission' (i.e. IPCC) states "(1) For the purposes of para.7 of Sch.3 to the Police Act 2002 (dispensation by the Commission from requirements of Sch.3)...(2) Complaints where...

...(a) more than 12 months have elapsed between the incident, or the latest incident, giving rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint and either that no good reason for the delay has been shown or that injustice would be likely to be caused by the delay".

(NB: To avoid dealing with my - legitimate - complaint against the 3 "crime reports":

  • (1)- Her Majesty's police Directorate of Professional Standards used this Regulation to seek dispensation from the IPCC: # 5.3, below - and

In the context of the Police Reform Act 2002, I also highlight the breach of the Act by Kensington & Chelsea police by having Trainee Detective Constable Simon J Dowling impersonate a police officer (# 3, key pt (3)(1)(4)).

Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2008 (In force: 1 Dec 08)

The Explanatory Notes state: "These Regulations amend the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 by adding regulations 14A to E and accompanying definitions". Reg.14A 'Written notices'

"For the purposes of para.19B(7) of Sch.3 to the Police Act 2002 (assessment of seriousness of conduct under investigation)" - this Regulation defines the content of the investigator's notification, including "(c)...if proved [whether] the conduct would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct" (In force at 1 Dec 08)

Police (Performance) Regulations 2008 (In force: 1 Dec 08)

The Explanatory Notes state that "These Regulations establish procedures for proceedings in respect of unsatisfactory performance or attendance of members of police forces of the rank of chief superintendent or below".

That they are to be read subject to chpt.3 and chpt.4 of the Home Office Guidance. Para.2.1 of chpt.3 states “the performance of individual police officers is a key element in the delivery of a quality policing service"

Reg.4 'Interpretation and delegation' defines (1) " unsatisfactory performance" as "an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank he is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level" ; (2)(a) "gross incompetence" as "and cognate expressions mean a serious inability or serious failure of a police officer to perform the duties of his rank or the role he is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level, to the extent that dismissal would be justified"

Home Office Guidance

The above Police (Performance) Regulations state that they "are to be read subject to chpts.3 and 4 of the Home Office Guidance" (issued pursuant to s.87(1) Police Act 1996) and to which 'regard must be had'.

Among the numerous points in Chpt. 3: 1.14 - "The importance of challenging unsatisfactory performance...of individual police officers...should not be underestimated" ; 1.19 - "Any shortfall...should be pointed out at the earliest opportunity by the line manager..."; 2.2 - "Performance management is an integral part of a line manager's responsibilities..." ;

The entirety of chapter 1 of the 'Home Office Guidance - Police Officer Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Management Procedures', is dedicated to 'Guidance on Standards of Professional Behaviour', emphasising / highlighting e.g.

  • "The importance of public confidence in the police being dependent on police officers demonstrating the highest level of personal and professional standards of behaviour"
  • 1. 14 - "...do not knowingly make any false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statements or entries in any record or document kept or made in connection with any police activity"
  • 1.30 - "Police managers have a particular responsibility to support the promotion of equality and by their actions to set a positive example"
  • 1.38 - "Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions"
  • 1.78 - "Police officers are expected to uphold the Standards of Professional Behaviour in the police service by taking appropriate action if they come across the conduct of a colleague which has fallen below these standards. They never ignore such conduct"
  • 1.79 - "...If they do not feel able to approach a line manager with their concerns, they may report the matter through the force’s confidential reporting mechanism, or to the Police Authority or Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)"

Back to list

(1)- In 2002, following receiving numerous anonymous phone calls, I filed a complaint with Chelsea police, identifying Andrew David Ladsky as the likely perpetrator / instigator. Concurrently, I also reported suffering other forms of harassment from him: “Crime report”, CR:5604102/02.

I submit that the 22 July 11 version of the “Crime report", provides very strong support to my initial key conclusion that – through cover-up, fabrications, conniving and collusion - Her Majesty’s police was (and continues) to protect Andrew Ladsky from the legal consequences of (among many others) his regime of ongoing harassment against me, and fellow residents.

 

SUMMARY - 2002 "CRIME REPORT" - CR:5604102/02

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

Introduction

On 18 Feb 02, following receiving numerous anonymous phone calls on my home landline, I filed a complaint with Her Majesty's police at Chelsea police station, identifying Andrew David Ladsky as the likely perpetrator / instigator, as well as reported suffering other forms of harassment from him (see below).

2 weeks previously, I had replied to his 'managing' agents, Martin Russell Jones, (snapshot under 'Advisors to Jefferson House') challenging the true nature of "the works". I concluded it was the start of Ladsky's vendetta against me - using his typical harassment and persecution tactics to anybody who 'dares' challenge him and interfere with his plans:

e.g. Head Residents Association and 13 Dec 00 "Notice by landlord" ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents ; Nucleus, Citizens Advice Bureau.

(More detailed background, below)

Following submitting a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request (under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998) to the Metropolitan Police's Public Access Office (below, # 5.1), in Jul 09, I received this heavily redacted "crime report", CR:5604102/02.

From there followed, over a period of nearly 1 year, my soul-destroying battles with the police to get it to implement my rights (detail under # 5, below), leaving me with the only option of issuing proceedings.

After a further 8 months of very intensive desk research, as a Litigant in Person, I filed a 19 Apr 11 Claim against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner (as well as 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission and Home Secretary) - in the London's Queen's Bench Division.

After I had filed and served my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat. in response to the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck out (as evidenced by the police's letter of 21.07.11 stating that it was "sending [me] the bundle") - on 22 Jul 11, the police supplied me with this significantly less redacted (and incomplete) version of the 2002 "crime report" (discussed, below, under the Key Points) .

I submit that the reason for unlawfully withholding the data from me is glaringly obvious: it provides very strong support to my key conclusion that - through cover-up, fabrications, conniving and conspiring - Her Majesty's police was - and continues - to protect Andrew David Ladsky from the legal consequences of his regime of harassment against me, and fellow residents.

I also submit that, looking at the content of the entries, pre the involvement by CID: DC DR Adams and DC SP Crockett from 20 Feb 02, and the 28/02/2002-12h51 entry, that the Masonic 'tentacles' had not kicked into action.

At the time, the comment from DC DR Adams, CID: "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky" summed it up (pg 3 of my 02.04.02 letter to DI Paul Webster). (Since then, my conclusion that the police is protecting Ladsky has been undeniably endorsed through a massive amount irrebutable evidence).

In discussing the "crime report" I refer to documents issued pre and post filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim. The main documents are:

  • (4)- my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. in response to the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck out (QB # 4(3)) - in which I comment on / challenge the entries in the 3 "crime reports"; (my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat. is very similar (QB # 5)
  • (5)- my 29.08.11 Supplementary MPS Wit.Stat. - in which I commented on the entries that had been redacted in the July 09 version of the 3 "crime reports" (QB # 4(7));
  • (1)- the illegal processing of the "crime reports";
  • (2)- the police's refusal to investigate my complaints in Oct 10 (# 6, below);

 

I repeat my Comments, above, under Overall Outcome on me.

Key points:

(1)- In spite of the evidence to the contrary: (i)- the ‘Method’ page, states that the anonymous phone calls were made “By person unknown"; (ii)- the ‘Elimination – Reason for elimination’ that there is “No evidence” ;

(iii)- the 19/02/2002-08h09 entry "Confirms the classification".

I raised this in my letters to the police: (i)- 13.08.09, pg 5; (ii)- 20.09.09, pg 25 , and (iii)- in my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, para.37(3)

(1A)- In this "crime report" (as well as in the other two: 2003 (section 2) and 2007 (section 3) Her Majesty's police wilfully and deliberately describes Ladsky - falsely - as my "NEIGHBOUR" - knowing full well that the accurate description is 'LANDLORD'.

I repeated this endlessly in my documents to the police - with evidence in support e.g.

pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- 13.08.09 letter: under (1) of 'Overall Conclusions', pgs 4, 17, 19 and 25;

(ii)- 20.09.09 letter, pg 21; (iii)- 02.06.10 Notice on pg 2, and in my supporting document on pgs 2, 4, 23, 28, 29, 31 and 40...

post filing my Claim (in which I referred to the issue under paras 8.b, 9.d, 1.1.2.1 k, v of the Particulars), I continued to challenge this significantly misleading statement: (i) paras 18-21 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, stating: "as it allowed Ladsky to state numerous false, malicious accusations against me and highly disparaging opinions of me without being challenged" ;...

(ii)- also during the 29 Jul 11 so-called 'hearing' (QB # 4(4)) but , because this description is key to the foundation of the so-called "crime reports", to my challenging it, Her Majesty's Master Eyre endorsed the retention of this description, by replying: "He is your neighbour, isn't he?" (QB # 4(4)) ; (para.20 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request);

Under para.13 of his 23.05.11 Defence, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner asserted that it has “negligible effects”. As I wrote under: (i)- paras 18-19 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.; (ii)- para.21 of my 17.10.11 Request:

“I strongly disagree with this. The effects of doing this are major rather than negligible” as it is, in fact, the foundation on which the majority of the content of the 2003 and 2007 “crime reports” reliesas does much of the 2002 report.

In support of my position that the “neighbour” description is “the foundation on which the “crime reports” relies” I cite, among other, my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. in which I discussed the text the police had ‘very conveniently’ redacted in its July 09 version of the “crime reports”.

(I refer to some of it below e.g. (i)- the claim, in the 2003 "crime report", that Ladsky had nothing to do with the 'service charge' demand;

(ii)- the claim, in the 2007 "crime report" that "Ladsky has become a target for abuse on [my] website because he was involved with the business who was carrying out the repairs and improvements that were paid with the service charge").

Aside from portraying me as 'the criminal' and Ladsky as ‘the victim’ - when, in fact, the reverse is the case - the glaringly obvious objective of the police - et.al. in the Masonic network - in doing this, is to portray me falsely as waging some kind of "racist" vendetta against Ladsky. WHY? 'retribution' - using their key tool: mental torture.

(1B)- The 'General Classification - DV/Hate Crime - is this a Hate Crime?' and 'Vulnerable/ intimidated victim' - have been left blank. WHY? (NB: But not when 'Dear Mr Ladsky' is 'the complainant' - see section 3).

It IS a "Hate Crime": "Race" and, "Targeted because of vulnerability" as I was suffering this harassment from Ladsky because I was 'daring' to challenge his intended fraudulent activities: my 02.02.02 email, 2 weeks previously, to his 'managing' agents - added to my profile.

Further, the 'Main classification Description' should also state Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as the repeated harassment amounts to offences under this Act.

The lengths the police went to in its blind determination to protect 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky:

(2)- To avoid capturing the landline (Reach Europe) number from which at least 3 anonymous calls were made - which had to be Ladsky's number:

  • (i)- telling me: "your BT voicemail has been calling your number by mistake" ; that there was no subscriber for the number; that BT is wrong. Something must have gone wrong with their system. We’ll contact BT again but, if they got the wrong number, we won’t contact you again” (*);
  • (*) I translated this as ' we have no intention of contacting you again'. I was right: in the 27/03/2002-22h32 entry, DC Adams wrote: “This matter is complete”
  • (ii)- under the 22/02/2002-14h31 entry, capturing my home number as being "the prolific number" from which the anonymous phone calls were made

(3)- Claiming that a resident had made ALL the 20 anonymous calls to me, "her friend" - including, after making 17 anonymous phone calls, making a further 3 'from a nearby hotel'

Based on the July 09 version of the "crime report", I wrote that the police's claim that the anonymous phone calls were made by the resident did not stack-up, and that it was based on fabrications and cover-up.

At the time, I reported this in my 02.04.02 letter to DI Webster, and 05.05.02 letter to Toby Harris.

Subsequently, I also wrote it on pgs 9-11 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police. And, post filing my Claim, I raised the issue under: (i)- paras 24-26(1) of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat; (ii)- paras 37 and 38 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

The 22 Jul 11 version, which has a large amount of redacted text in relation to 'events' with this resident, provides absolute confirmation of this:

  • on 25 Mar 02 at c. 14h00, DC Adams phoned me to say "We have interviewed [the resident]" (my 02.04.02 letter to Webster)
  • 22/05/2002-14h32 entry - the 'story' of how the resident 'admitted' to 'ALSO' making the calls from a landline number - that would make a 6-year old laugh his/her head off:
  • “…I called [resident] this evening…regarding these calls, she said she did not remember making them, despite my assurances that as she had already been warned regarding calls before and after these calls were logged that no further action would be taken and the matter could be cleared up to ensure Ms Rawé’s peace of mind.
  • A few minutes later [resident] rang the office apologising profusely, she told me that my call out of the blue had overwhelmed her and that she could now remember making the calls on her way home one evening

From this, one is expected to believe that the resident goes ‘past the Carlton Tower hotel’, which is c.150m from her apartment, and thinks: Oh! Let me go in and make another 3 anonymous phones calls to “my friend” (“the victim is a friend”, 20/03/2002-13h51 entry) (as I wrote under para.10(2) of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat.)

Note the prior 'story' under the 20/03/2002-13h51 entry that the "[resident]'s phone was stolen in November 01" and, as I captured in my 02.04.02 letter to DI Paul Webster, DC Adams telling me: "whoever stole the phone, made the calls to you".

(NB: The large amount of text that was blocked in the July 09 version, under the 20/03/2002-13h51 entry, tallies with what I wrote in my 02.04.02 letter to Webster).

Other text that was redacted in the July 09 version:

  • 26/03/2002-13h23 entry: ensuring that Ladsky is cleared of involvement: "[resident] refused to say why she had made the calls. She denied any involvement with Mr Ladsky"
  • 20/03/2002-13h51 entry that I was "intimating" that the resident had been put up to making the calls by Ladsky "despite the evidence pointing to someone else" (some of the redacted text in the July 09 version made it difficult to ascertain what was claimed)

26/03/2002-13h42 entry (not blocked): "...[Ladsky] has not been the subject in any crime reports..." Contrast that with the following:

(1)- At least 4 other residents complained to Kensington & Chelsea police of suffering harassment from Ladsky. I reported this in my 02.04.02 letter to Webster.

Further, the July 11 version of the "crime report" i.e. text that had been redacted in the July 09 version confirms this:

  • (i)- 18/02/2002-18h53 entry: "1. Two other residents have suffered the same way and it has been the suspect"; "7. The occupier of Number 12 [Elderly Resident] has spoken to PS Emma Whitlock about the suspect as he received phone calls";
  • (I raised the above under para.5 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and para.42 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request)

(2)- Under para.6 of his 30.06.11 Application (QB # 4(3)), the Met Commissioner claimed that "All the details supplied must be recorded". How come that those supplied to the police in relation to Ladsky do not get recorded? (Discussed e.g. under para.42 of my 17.10.11 Request) (The police repeated this in relation to my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment in Oct 10).

As I wrote on pg 13 of my 13.08.09 letter to the police: “K&C police claims to have no “crime report” against Ladsky - because it evidently ensures that none are recorded.... as harassment is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997it follows that Kensington & Chelsea police has not only failed to record these acts by Andrew Ladsky – it has also failed to take action.

(3)- 26/03/2002-13h42 entry (not blocked): "in this case there was absolutely no evidence to link Ladsky with this matter”.

How could DC DR Adams, CID, make this statement given that he had 'yet to identify' the subscriber for the Reach Europe number?

Note the requirement of s.1(4) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 that places

"a duty on the police to conduct an investigation with a view to determining whether a person should be charged with an offence and, if charged, whether that person is guilty of it...

and to do this whether these point towards or away from the suspect".

Not to mention those of the 1999 Police Code of Conduct in force at the time.

(3)- The police failed to record:

(1)- [removed due to text revealed in July 11 version]

(2)- Telling me on 20 Mar 02, that the calls "came from your phone. Something must have gone wrong with your BT voicemail"

(3)- [removed due to text revealed in July 11 version]

(4)- The fact that I sent DC Adams a 26.03.02 fax reporting the conversation I had with BT - because it undermined his fabrications

(5)- the fact in my 25.03.02 fax to DC Adams I related the main points he claimed the resident alleged to have made the calls had told him - asking him to confirm my understanding. And of course, he also failed to record the fact that he never replied.

(6)- the fact that, on 27 Mar 02: (i)- I phoned DC DR Adams, CID, to determine whether he had received my faxes of 25 and 26 March; (ii)- he complained So, we are going to have to throw resources at this for just two phone calls!;

(iii)- had said to me 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? (conversation captured in my 02.04.02 letter to DI Paul Webster).

Pre-filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim, I raised the above, among others, on pg 14 of my 13.08.09 letter, and pgs 26 & 27 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police;

pg 15 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice.

Post filing the Claim, under para.24 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., and paras 37 & 38 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

As I wrote on pg 27 of my 20.09.09 letter to the police: "Failure to process this data has an impact on me as, by not stating that I was put under duress by DC Adams, as well as, in effect, told (what was obvious to me) that K&C police was ‘in Andrew Ladsky’s camp’, it can be construed that I backed down on my complaint – thereby undermining my credibility"

(7)- DI Paul Webster and DC DR Adams also took steps to ensure that my complaints were not recorded in the "crime report"

(I reported this: pgs 7, 11, 12, 14 & 15 of my 13.08.09 letter, and pgs 25-28 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police;

in the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice e.g. pgs 5 & 7. Post filing my 19.04.11 Claim, under para.24 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat).

  • 19/03/2002-15h27 entry, by DI P Webster: "I have received a registered letter from Ms Rawé regarding the progress of this investigation". The date of my letter is 13.03.02. It is a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. The letter was not addressed to him. He got hold of it because I copied DC Adams and DC SP Crockett on the letter.
  • 08/04/2002-14h32 entry, by DC DR Adams: All - bar one point - in my 02.04.02 letter to Webster in which I relate comprehensive detail of my dealings with DC DR Adams from 20 to 27 Mar 02 - including quoting him verbatim - has not been captured.
  • DI Paul Webster failed to capture his 23.04.02 'reply' to my 02.04.02 letter in which, among other, he states "No crime report has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky…”.
  • One month later, in his 25/05/2002-10h52 entry, DR Adams wrote falsely that he told me "DI Webster would be writing to her to cover all the points made in her previous letter". Then, they closed the report.
  • My 05.05.02 'cry for help' to Toby Harris asking for "an independent investigation of events with Kensington & Chelsea police" has not been captured.
  • As can be seen from his 11.07.02 reply, he had contacted K&C police. Likewise, this has not been recorded.
  • On pg 27 of my 20.09.09 letter to the police I wrote: "Failure to record this correspondence is evidently intended to cover-up the fact that I was not satisfied with K&C police’s ‘handling’ of my complaint. Not revealing this correspondence undermines my credibility".

(4)- Note also that several key pages are missing from the 22 July 11 version. Before the 29 Jul 11 so-called 'hearing' I raised the issue in my 24.07.11 letter to the police - on which I copied the court.

In the context of my 30.08.11 Appeal Application, I raised the issue under para.14 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and para.15 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request. WHY was this also ignored? (see snapshot under kangaroo court)

(5)- Under para.8 of his 23.05.11 Defence, and para.10 his 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat to have my 19.04.11 Claim struck out (QB # 4 (3)), Her Majesty's Met Commissioner claimed that "The police investigated my complaint ".

Further, HM's Master Eyre, endorsed his position: Reason 3(1) of the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (*)

Considering the dictionary definition of 'investigate' v. the above - it is abundantly clear that the police did not 'investigate' my complaint. I rejected the assertion under paras 23-25 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. And, under paras 37, 38 & 40 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, wrote that Master Eyre was "repeating the police false assertions" and had "failed to take the evidence into account".

(*) Subsequently endorsed by Her Majesty's Justices Lang and Mackay: 06.10.11 and 24.10.11 Orders. My (identical) Comments are attached to each Order.

(6)- Other examples of glaringly obvious false claims by HM's Met Commissioner / his officers and staff :

(1)- Para.11 of his 23.05.11 Defence that "the police complied at all times with the data protection principles in relation to my personal data"; para.22 that "no rectifications, deletions or amendments are required"

(My reply: paras 27, 28, 39-42 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request). (Snapshot: breach Data Protection Act 1998)

Re. its failure to record material data: para.13 of the 23.05.11 Defence that “the DPP does not require it to (a) record every piece of information, (b) information according to my preferences

- v. what he states under para.6 of the 30.06.11 Application: “All the details [supplied] must be recorded…” (My reply: para.131 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat; paras 38-41 of my 17.10.11 Request)

Concurrently, under para.22 of the 23.05.11 Defence, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's assertion that: "no rectifications, deletions or amendments are required” (in response to para.7 of my Particulars of Claim) (My reply: paras 40 & 41 of my 17.10.11 Request).

(2)- Under para.10 of my Particulars of Claim, I stated my suspicion that the police was withholding data from me in breach of my rights under the DPA. As demonstrated by the above (and the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports") - I was right (and there is more retained by the police). It proves - undeniably - the falsity of the assertions:

  • (i)- under para.25 (and para.12) of the 23.05.11 Defence, and (ii)- para.15 of the 30.06.11 Application, that the police had "released data to me to the extent required and/or permitted under s.7(4) DPA" ;
  • (iii)- of the claim in the 25.08.09 letter that "there is no further information we can provide you with" (below, # 5.1).
  • (I reported this under para.86 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and paras 13-15 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request)

(7)- Overall, how did Her Majesty's Master Eyre - summarily - assess my 19.04.11 claims under the Data Protection Act 1998 in 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS order?

Under Reason 6, 'he' agreed with Her Majesty's Met Commissioner that my claims are "Misconceived and unfounded" and,

under Reason 8, described them as "no more than a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (Overview # 18(2)(1) ; summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law)

This ' assessment' was endorsed by HM's Justices Lang and Mackay in 'their' 06.10.11 and 24.10.11 Orders (QB # 4(7) ; Overview # 18(2)(4)) - bringing the police's number of 'trophies' to 3.

My overall reply, under paras 100 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request: "as undeniably demonstrated by the content of this document, the learned Master totally ignored the police’s breaches of my rights under the Act (Particulars, 1.1.1.1).

He also ignored Recital 28 of Directive 95/46/EC which states: “Any processing of personal data must be lawful and fair to the individual”:

Very conveniently, Her Majesty's police was given a 4th 'trophy' to add to its database as 'irrebutable proof' of 'supporting evidence' to its pack of lies"crime report" - by 'the Defender of Human Rights', the European Court of Human Rights - see my above Comments under Overall Outcome on me.

(NB: The above comments i.e. under KP # 7 - are also applicable to the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports")

Back to list

BACKGROUND TO ABOVE INTRODUCTION AND KEY POINTS - 2002

30 Jan 02 - At c. 23h00 when I came back from work, Andrew David Ladsky forced me into Jefferson House by coming within centimeters of me as I was at the front door. Asking him who he was and whether he lived in the block (I had never seen him before), he replied: "None of your business"

1 Feb 02 - 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. Ladsky was living on the 5th floor at the time.

(As I reported in e.g. my 13.03.02 letter to the then Police Complaints Authority (below), it led me to disconnect my door bell. I have left it disconnected ever since, to stop the evil vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) continuing to use this as part of its regime of criminal psychological harassment).

I concluded it was the start of Ladsky's vendetta against me - using his typical harassment tactics to anybody who 'dares' challenge him and interfere with his plans (see e.g. Extortion).

At the time I had just replied in my 02.02.02 email to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for the Jefferson House 'concentration camp', that the planned survey for the block dealt with items connected with the construction of an extra floor - rather than with 'redecoration'. (I was right! see e.g. 'Major works').

Also, I had 'dared' contact the local council about determining the ownership of Jefferson House (Owners identity # 1 & # 2).

As demonstrated by the experience of other leaseholders: e.g. (1)- Head Residents Association and (2)- 13 Dec 00 "Notice by landlord"; (3)- Elderly Resident; (4)- Other Residents...

- anybody who 'dares' to stand-up to Rachman Ladsky is guaranteed to be subjected to ongoing harassment and, if they 'dare' to not give in, to extremely vicious, cruel, evil attacks intended to destroy the person (with the very active help of the 'back-up system') - as evidenced by my experience.

The same applies to anybody who 'dares' help the leaseholders e.g. his harassment of Nucleus, Citizens Advice Bureau (section 4, below).

Like a leaseholder wrote me in her 01.11.02 letter to me (following harassment of her tenant by Ladsky): "Ladsky acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims"

15 Feb 02 - 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 Ladsky. (The same thing was repeated on 3 Apr 02).

17 Feb 02 - From 21h50, I received numerous anonymous phone calls in succession, on my landline in the apartment. 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 Feb, BT was nonetheless able to trace the calls).

(NB: Ladsky did the same thing to the person who was running the Residents Association e.g. her  14.01.01 letter to Ladsky (on which she copied me): “There is no reason for you to persist in ringing, including after midnight, without leaving a message… last night my husband counted thirteen such calls during a twenty minute call I was having with him. Just one minute after you conducted your call to me you rang twice more” )

19 Feb 02 - Another 7 anonymous phone calls were made in succession 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 Feb / early Mar 02, I also received anonymous phone calls at work – which I knew were from 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 used in relation to the apartment). (For work I only used Noëlle Rawé).

(A woman, clearly one of Ladsky's accomplices, also phoned me at work in Jan/Feb 04 in an attempt to scare me as 'the message' included "Don't worry, they won't kill you")

(NB: There has been a change of plan as on 15 Jun 09 I was told "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live"...followed by confirmation on 14 Jun 14, of being evidently impatient to "kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue").

(NB: Another form of harassment and persecution was on 7 Mar 02: On my way back from work, at a bus stop that was 2 stops from 'the concentration camp', Ladsky and another individual, who was driving the car, stopped the car, sneered at me, revved the engine, and departed at high speed - as I reported in e.g. my 04.08.02 letter to Toby Harris).

18 Feb 02 - In the evening, I went to Chelsea police, Lucan Street, to report the anonymous calls; being forced into Jefferson House by Ladsky ; pressing of my door bell and object thrown at my windows - and specifically identified Andrew David Ladsky as the perpetrator of this harassment (acts which, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, are punishable by imprisonment).

On 19 / 20 Feb 02, I was told by DC DR Adams, CID, 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. The "crime report" shows that it was processed under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

To reiterating my claim to DC DR Adams, CID, that the perpetrator was Andrew Ladsky, his immediate response was:

nobody else has complained about him! (Making me feel as though I were a liar).

When I said that the resident of flat 12 had complained about him, his split second reply was the 71 year old man! (Key pt # 3, above). I was shocked by the police's dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the Resident's age. Further, it was clear from Adams's reply that he had lied: he knew of / had heard of Ladsky (Key pt # 3, above)

After a delay caused by the police, British Telecom (BT)supplied the numbers to the police on 22 Feb 02.

The following week, DC Adams told me that the calls had been made from 2 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 a subscriber name was because the phone was registered with another telephone service provider – and that it had specified the name of the provider: ‘Reach Europe’.

DC DR 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). It was a sign that a cover-up exercise was being put in motion - and I proved to be right! (Key pt # 3, above)

Adams claimed that it could take several weeks to obtain the name of the owner of the telephones.

26 Feb 02 - 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 Jefferson House 'concentration camp'. Ladsky assaulted me, as he pushed me aside to go past me in the corridor. When I commented on his behaviour, he told me to Get lost!. I reported this to the police: 28/02/2002-12h51 entry.

7 Mar 02 - 21h45 - Andrew Ladsky and another individual tried to intimidate me at a bus stop.

11 Mar 02 - Malicious leak in my bathroom.

(NB: For other examples of harassment and persecution by Andrew Ladsky and /or on his instructions - see e.g. My Diary 27 Jul 03 ; 27 Aug 03 ; 19 Apr 05 ; snapshots - Persecution # 2 - and many others - listed under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, including a list , as well as criminal psychological harassment).

As, by 11 Mar 02 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 13.03.02. For the sake of transparency, I copied DC DR Adams, as well as DC SP Crockett, with whom I had also been dealing when DC Adams was not available.

(*) Following the European Court of Human Rights' case, Khan v United Kingdom, it was 'replaced by' / changed its name in Apr 04 to the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) - see section 5, below

On 20 Mar 02, 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 apartment 33, apparently, below that of Andrew 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.

 

DC Adams said that Resident K’s phone had been “stolen in November 2001”, and that she was “very sorry”. I did not buy this story. (see Key pt # 4, above)

While she might have obtained my (ex. directory) number from the Residents Association - as I had not given it to her, but was a member of the Committee, it simply did not make sense that somebody who ‘steals’ a phone waits 4 months to start dialing - 'at random' - a number stored in the memory and does so 13 times on one day; waits another 2 days, and does it another 5-6 times. This person clearly knew who he / she was dialing.

When I asked about the subscriber for the calls made from a landline number, 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?”

Adams asked whether I used BT voicemail. To my replying that I did, Adams said “Well something must have gone wrong with it. It’s been calling your number by mistake”. (see Key pt # 2)

It was blatantly obvious that DC DR Adams was going out of his way to not reveal the subscriber of the landline number – which I concluded was Ladsky.

(Confirmed by the report, as DC Adams's mate, DC SP Crockett, made sure that the Reach Europe number was not captured on the police system (Key pt # 2)

Adams asked me Will you prosecute? to which I replied that I would get back to him.

DC DR Adams phoned me at 10h45 on 25 Mar 02, 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.

Adams then said We take the decision whether or not to prosecute. 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, 3.5 hours later, i.e. on 25 Mar 02, at 14h10, DC DR Adams, CID, phoned me back. ‘Amazingly’, in the space of these 3.5 hours, he had 'managed' to contact Resident K and interview her. Adams told me:

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 - and I was right - Key pt # 3)

To this I replied: So, there are 5 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?’ ('the Brotherhood'!)

It was blatantly obvious that DC DR Adams was protecting Andrew Ladskyand so were others with whom I had been in contact at HM's 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 Ladsky / his stable of racketeers (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: (i)- on the - fraudulent - 29.11.02 claim filed in West London County Court, the Particulars of claim show that the ‘service charge’ demand for her apartment, flat 33, was the 2nd highest, at £62,000 (US$109,300) (it can also be seen on MRJ's "Major works apportionment" issued in the context of the 29 Nov 02 claim 'hearings');

(ii)- in 2003, the Land Registry record for flat 33 had a caution filed against that apartment on 10 October 2003 in favour of Steel Services). (NOTE: In Aug 07 this resident was still in the block - which I found most extraordinary - see the note at the beginning of the page on Ex(?) Resident K )

(For what happened with other leaseholders: 9 out of the 14 apartments listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the full amount of the 'service charge', and a further 16 apartments had also paid the full amount by the end of 2003 - amounting to £502,000 (Overview # 3 ; CKFT # 2 , # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18).

In fact, because of breach of consultation procedures, the contribution for each apartment should have been capped at £250 - see detail in Overview Note 2. (Events are contained in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement; Overview # 11) (see also Extortion).

On the same day i.e. 25 Mar 02 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. (Key pt # 8)

On 26 Mar 02, 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. (Key pt # 7)

On 27 Mar 02, I phoned DC DR Adams to ask him whether he had received my two faxes. Reply “Only the first one” i.e. the 25.03.02 fax in which I asked him to confirm what Resident K had said ‘during the interview’.

When I told him what my 2nd 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!(Key pt # 9)

DC DR 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?

As he had 'not obtained' the name of the subscriber for the landline: how could he make the above assertion? My answer: because he knew that the subscriber for the landline number was Ladsky – and he, the Masons' flunkey and henchman, was not going to reveal it. (Key pt # 9)

DC Adams then said As you have complained, my superior will be in touch with you next week. Goodbye!

(NB: For the sake of transparency, I copied DC Adams on my 13.03.02 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 had to be a subscriber for this number. Somebody had to be paying for the calls made from that phone (Key points # 2 , # 3)

My translation of the message from DC DR Adams: a (typical) ‘Get lost!' You won’t get evidence from us that incriminates our 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky.

All the above details, starting from 20 Mar 02, are captured in my 02.04.02 letter to Detective Inspector Paul Webster, Kensington Police. Clearly, I would not have written this to him (*) if it were not true. Note also that DC Adams never came back to me to challenge what I wrote in the letter.

(*) Showing my ignorance, at the time, I thought that DI Webster was the Head of K&C police.

In 'his' 23.04.02 'reply', DI Paul Webster, stated:

"No crime report has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky, in your letter you mention that other occupiers had complained this may be correct, but there are no reported crimes about Mr Ladsky"  

I was definitely"correct" - as demonstrated by the evidence contained under section 4, below. Further:

  • DC DR Adams told me, on 25 Mar 02, that Resident K had told him that Ladsky had been harassing her. At the time of launching my website, I reported stating this on pg 2 of my 02.04.02 letter to DI Paul Webster and, that, very clearly, I would not have written this if it were not true.
  • As reported above, DC DR Adams telling me, on 19 / 20 Feb 02, that "nobody else has complained about him" (i.e. Ladsky). When I replied "how about the man in flat 12?", his split second reply was: "the 71 year old man".
  • This is captured in my 13.03.02 letter to the Police Complaints Authority. As per the above, my claim is substantiated under the 18/02/2002-18h53 entry of the 22 Jul 11 version, for which the text had been redacted in the July 09 version.

In 'his' 23.04.02 letter, DI P 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 DI Paul Webster's 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. (NB!!!)

In the light of my experience by then, it was blatantly obvious that it would - continue - to be a complete waste of time.

Back to list

The Metropolitan Police Authority (*): another government department with a very unique interpretation of its legal mandate

(*) In early 2012, it was replaced with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) - see http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/policing-and-crime/about-mopc and http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/mayor-boris-johnson-heads-uk%E2%80%99s-first-office-policing-and-crime.

(NB: In Oct 11, I replied to the Mayor's survey. He did not acknowledge my reply. As to my copying him on my 25.11.14 letter to Theresa May, then Home Secretary, like the others, his only action has been to ensure a continuation of the persecution.

But then, "[he is] utterly fed up of reading attacks on police officers in London". And who knows: had he replied, being the epitome of the British Establishment, he would probably have told me to "Fuck off and die!" - as he said to a London taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15 (Source: The Guardian)).

In the light of HM's Kensington & Chelsea police's attitude, on 05.05.02, I escalated my complaint to Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the then 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: "...ensure that London has a police force that is responsive to the needs of its community"

In this letter, I provided comprehensive details of events, and identified Andrew Ladsky as the perpetrator of the harassment and intimidation I was suffering.

Lack of response, led me to send a 31.05.02 chaser email - in which I related more recent events with K&C Police - because, yet again, they did not 'stack-up' .

Indeed, on 23 May 02, DC DR 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 closed.  (captured in my 31.05.02 email to Harris) (Key pt # 3)

I viewed this as yet another concocted story – for the brain-dead – as it implied that Resident K had booked a room in the hotel which is c. 120m from Jefferson House where she had a 2-bedroom apartment. How could the calls have been traced otherwise? And the “I consider the matter closed” was the equivalent of, yet, another (typical) ‘Get lost!’. I was right! (Key pt # 3)

My view is that the police had no intention of getting back to me (see above, comments from DC DR Adams, and DI P Webster) - but did so because I had written to Sir Toby Harris.

My chaser email of 31.05.02 led Her Majesty's Sir Toby Harris to reply on 11.07.02

"Mrs [x] is held fully responsible for the crime". (1) 

"There was therefore no option other than to hold Mrs [x] fully responsible for this crime" 

"...you seem convinced that Mrs [x] acted under the direction of Mr Ladsky. While this may or may not be the case, the police cannot act on the basis of your suspicions, however strongly held, and must act only on the basis of established facts" (2)

As to 'investigating' the phone calls from the landline, he wrote:

"Although the subscriber for the landline was never identified" [3] ", you must appreciate that officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure when investigating a case and as such, it seems reasonable to assume that following Mrs [x] confession" [4] "nothing further would be gained by ascertaining that information". (5)

"While I can understand your frustration at this turn of events, it does seem unlikely that ascertaining this information would assist your ultimate goal which appears to be to prove that you are being harassed by a party or parties that wish to force the sale of your home for their own financial gain"

(1)- At last, I had this in writing!

(2)- Considering the evidence in the case = a blatant demonstration of contempt and disdain! See also the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" on how Her Majesty's police implements this 'policy'.

(3)- Obviously, there had been a change of plan in the story I would be given: this v. above: "I consider the matter closed"

(4)- Indication of a set-up.

(5)- It certainly would not be in the interest of Ladsky. And, as DC DR Adams told me on 27 Mar 02 "you won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky" = 'the Brotherhood' at work.

Conclusion on the position of Her Majesty's police: when 'Dear Mr Ladsky' harasses me endlessly - and regardless of what this harassment consists of: That's fine. And, 'I', 'the non-entity' 'must - of course - appreciate that the police has more important and pressing things to deal with'.

However, when in 2003, Ladsky contacted the same police force to say that "I swore at him" - and made false accusations against me, 'mysteriously' the police no longer had any concerns about 'the judicious use of resources'. Funny that! The wonders of 'the Brotherhood'!

I replied to Sir Toby Harris on 04.08 02. In this letter, I wrote, among others:

" ...I would point out that there is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. But, this is conveniently ignored by the police".

"...my dealings with the police in recent months, have led me to totally - and for ever - lose my confidence in the British police"

The following year, events with KCP (see below), only served to reinforce my feelings - eventually leading to extreme loathing and utter repulsion.

The 07.08.02 reply from the Metropolitan Police Authority to my 04.08.02 letter, once again stresses the need for "evidence"

Note that my correspondence with Sir Harris has not been captured in the police report (Key pt #10)

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. (Or else, record the conversation, as I did on 16 Oct 10 - which proved to be a very wise decision: QB # 4(2)3)

'Because of this', in a letter dated 20.06.02, the A/Inspector, Chelsea Police station, informed me that my "...original letter has not been recorded as a complaint because I have been unable to establish if you wish to substantiate your original letter" . "If you wish to discuss..." .

Evidently, Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police does not consider the contents of - signed - correspondence as evidence.  

Hence, same attitude as 2 other government departments in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea: West London County Court in 2002-04 (snapshot under kangaroo court # 2) and in 2007-08, as well as Kensington & Chelsea Housing...

but, 'mysteriously', they ALL treat any word from the multi-criminal Rachman crook Andrew David Ladsky as the 'Gospel' - as evidenced by what took place in 2003... and subsequently in 2007. Funny that!

In 2002, my 6-month battles with Kensington & Chelsea police, the Police Complaints Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority cost me c. 50 hours of my life, and £45 in costs (Doc library # 4.1 to # 4.4)...

and subsequently a lot more - as can be seen from e.g. the follow on snapshots Doc library, from # 4.6 - and summary provided above, under Overall outcome on me.

(NB: I had brought HM's Kensington & Chelsea police to the attention of 'my' then Member of Parliament, HM's Michael Portillo. The outcome from 'my' MP - who should be helping me? 3 replies that amount to 'get lost!'.

And worse when I approached his successor, Malcolm Rifkind in 2009 - as he connived against me.

The wonders of the Establishment, in "fantastically corrupt", very sick Britain - in which the State acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

I also repeat my above note.

Back to list

 

(2)- In 2003, when Andrew David Ladsky made a so-called "complaint" against me for "using abusive language towards him" - before contacting me - Chelsea police immediately processed a criminal charge against me of a "CONFIRMED" "SUBSTANTIATED OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT" - making it 'stick' by falsely claiming that 'I had a history of doing this': "Crime report" CR:5602261/03.

It then sent me a 27.01.03 letter warning me that I had better shut-up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' "or there may be further consequences".

Ignoring my reply of 11.02.03 asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me", it closed down the report falsely claiming I had not responded - thereby denying me the right to defend myself against the accusations.

 

SUMMARY - 2003 "CRIME REPORT" - CR:5602261/03

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

Introduction

On 25 Jan 03, Andrew David Ladsky filed a so-called 'complaint' against me with Her Majesty's Chelsea police for "using abusive language towards him".

What actually happened: as I was coming out of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp', totally ignoring him, Ladsky provoked me by saying: "Better luck next time!", followed by a sarcastic laugh. I told him 'where he could go' (specifically: "Go fuck yourself!").

I assumed he was referring to the impending then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 'hearing' on 5 Feb 03, and that he had it ‘sewn-up’. (Subsequent events with the tribunal: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law, including 'its' 'summary of the case' - proved my assessment to be correct).

This so-called 'complaint' by Rachman Ladsky was intended to scare me from pursuing my challenge of his 07.08.02 application at the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing' (see Extortion) and was also motivated by 'retribution' / revenge.

In fact, 3 weeks previously, on 3 Jan 03, Ladsky had told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!".

What did the mentally deranged (*), consumed by greed, Rachman Ladsky want to "get me" for? My 'daring' - 'me' with 'my profile' - to stand-up to him - through his stable of corrupt racketeers - and interfere with his fraudulent plans (see below).

(*) I am not a specialist, but the conduct of this man since 2002 (including with my fellow leaseholders) suggests to me that he is, at a minimum, a very sick sociopath. (What kind of person would cite him as 'role model' for their children?)

(See also Ladsky's so-called 'complaint' against me in 2007). (His vendetta against me started in 2002, and is typical of the treatment he dishes out (section 2, above).

(More detailed background, below)

Following submitting a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to the Metropolitan Police's Public Access Office (below, # 5.1), in Jul 09, I received this heavily redacted "crime report", CR:5602261/03.

From there followed, over a period of nearly one year, my soul-destroying battles with the police to get it to implement my rights (detail under section 5, below), leaving me with the only option of issuing proceedings.

After a further 8 months of very intensive desk research, as a Litigant in Person, I filed a 19 Apr 11 Claim against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner (as well as 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission and Home Secretary) - in the London's Queen's Bench Division.

After I had filed and served my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat. in response to the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck out (as evidenced by the police's letter of 21.07.11 stating that it was "sending [me] the bundle") - on 22 Jul 11, the police supplied me with this significantly less redacted (and incomplete) version of the 2003"crime report" (discussed, below, under the Key Points).

The reason for unlawfully withholding the data from me is glaringly obvious: it provides very strong support to my key conclusion that Her Majesty's police was assisting Andrew David Ladsky in his fraudulent activities - through conniving, conspiring and collusion.

I repeat my Comments, above, under Overall Outcome on me.

In discussing the "crime report" I refer to documents issued pre and post filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim - see section 1, above, for the list.

Key points:

(1)- Keen to continue helping 'a brother' (see 2002; other residents), Her Majesty's Chelsea police proceeded immediately (at 13h30 on 25 Jan 03) - before contacting me - with processing, on its system, a criminal charge against me of a "Confirmed" "Substantiated Offence of Harassment".

WHY? 'Retribution' - using their key tool: mental torture - added to helping 'a brother' 'in need'. (See below the Met Commissioner's outrageous denial of the implication of this classification).

Consider this in the light of: (i)- the 11.07.02 letter to me from Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police that: "the police can only act on the basis of established facts";

(ii)- the requirement of s.1(4) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (extracts under # 2, above)

Note also on the 'Victim details' page, under 'Officer's Notes', the entry that was redacted in the July 09 version: "The victim made a report on 03/01/03. The victim states that he only has a CAD number for this no crime reference number".

Does this mean that Ladsky filed another 'complaint' against me? (I raised this under para.16 of my 29.08.11 MPS Witness Statement, including stating that the police wanted to (again) block it out)

(2)- In this "crime report" (as well as the other two: 2002, section 1, above; 2007, section 3, below), Andrew David Ladsky is falsely and deliberately described by the police as as "MY NEIGHBOUR" (see section 1).

The objectives in doing this are glaringly obvious from the content of the "crime report" - including what had been redacted in the July 09 version:

(i)- to save Ladsky from having to explain - and therefore avoid probing him on any of his false, malicious, vicious, slanderous accusations against me and opinions of me - because doing so would bring up highly inconvenient data that would totally discredit his so-called 'complaint';

(ii)- to portray me as waging some kind of vendetta against him (see also section 3, 2007 "crime report", that irrebutably confirms this).

(3)- 25/01/2003–13h55 entry - “... the suspect was walking out of her flat and shouted “Go fuck yourself!’".

As explained at the beginning of this summary / under the below detail, what actually happened is that I was totally ignoring Ladsky, and he provoked me by saying: "Better luck next time!", followed by a sarcastic laugh.

'Very conveniently', the police failed to establish from Ladsky what had led me to say this to him. I reported the facts on / under (among other):

(i)- pg 17 of my 13.08.09 letter to the police - and followed this by quoting events in support of my conclusion that he had the 5 Feb 03 tribunal hearing 'sewn-up';

(ii)- pg 23 of my 20.09.09 letter, also to the police, stating, among other, that it was "all part of the objective of portraying me as "mad"" ; (iii)- pgs 25 & 26 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police.

Post filing my Claim, under (iv)- para.34 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat;

(v)- paras 11(6) and 26(1) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, stating, under paras 28 and 47 & 48 that, Master Eyre had opted to ignore my evidence ; had he not done so, he would have known that the accusation, as captured, is false, malicious, and therefore libellous.

(4)- 25/01/2003–13h55 entry - “The suspect say ‘Go fuck yourself’ to the victim when she sees approx 3 or 4 times. The suspect says this is in the public area of the lobby and it is very embarrassing for the victim... This verbal abuse started in November”.

These accusations are false, malicious, and therefore defamatory.

There are 2 obvious reasons for this lie:

  • (ii)- reinforce my portrayal as waging some kind of vendetta against Ladsky (contrast that with the data contained under e.g. Extortion ; Persecution # 1(4)(16) , # 2 , # 2.8).

I denied endlessly the accusation: e.g. (i)- pgs 17 and 18 of my 13.08.09 letter, and (ii)- pg 8 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police;

(iii)- pgs 26 & 27 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police;

post filing my Claim: (iv)- para.35 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.

(5)- 25/01/2003–13h55 entry - "The managing agents sent a letter to all the residents to pay for this refurbishment".

Likewise, I exposed endlessly the fact (see Extortion) - and obvious reasons - for the 'failure' by the police to probe Ladsky on the content of 'the letter' (15.07.02 and 17.07.02), the context and surrounding events and, of course, its 'failure' to establish his relationship with the 'managing' agents e.g.:

(i)- pgs 18 & 19 of my 13.08.09 letter, and (ii)- pgs 27 & 28 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police ; (iii)- pgs 26 & 27 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police.

Post filing my Claim, under; (vi)- para.38 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat., stating:

"Posing as just ‘a resident’, Ladsky would, like all the other leaseholders, have been ‘up in arms’ at the 15th July 2002 letter from the managing agents, as it demanded payment of the global sum of £736,000 - and was doing this without providing any detailed costing in support. (It led ‘Steel Services’ to, 3 weeks later, file a 7th August 2002 Application in the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)" (Overview # 1 and # 2);

(v)- paras 34 & 35 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request - listing the main events.

Further, as I wrote e.g. on pg 23 of my 20.09.09 letter to the police, I contend that the comment

"the letter was sent to all the residents" impacts on me as it implies that the service charge demand was fair and reasonable (which it definitely was not), and thereby – falsely - portrays me as the only objector to the service demand (which I most definitely was not, as evidenced by the fact that 14 flats ended-up being listed on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim) – with numerous negative connotations about me e.g. that I fail to honour my contractual obligations, etc."

(NB: The 15.07.02 'service charge' demand 'from' the racketeer Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, claiming £736,206 (US$1.3m) “for repair and maintenance works” was fraudulent: My Diary 22 Nov 08...

...- under which, among others, I captured 'Steel Services' = Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$9,900) v. his original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (22.11.02 claim ; Overview Note 2 ; Major works ; LVT # 3 , # 4 , # 7 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18 ; Extortion)).

(6)- 25/01/03-13h55 entry - which was redacted in the July 09 version:

“…The victim states that the reason why she is being like this [objecting to the [fraudulent] demand / using "abusive language"?] is because she does not want to pay...”. (NB: see Extortion ; kangaroo courts)

Under para.17(1) of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat., I wrote: "This is a repeat of a false, defamatory accusation".

And, under para.11(7) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request: "The falsity of this claim is proven by irrebutable evidence: (i) the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal told me (and fellow leaseholders) to NOT pay the service charge demand until it had issued its report and it had been implemented;

[NB: LVT # 1.5] (ii) the demand was fraudulent: WS2 para.17(1)". [NB: West London County Court # 12].

Under para.17(1) of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I also wrote: "There can be no reason for blocking this other than to prevent me from challenging it". Consider how this false, malicious, libellous assertion about me comes across to the countless parties - not 'in the know' - that have access to the police's crime reports.

Note that portraying me libellously as an individual who defaults on my contractual obligations was again repeated in the 2007 "crime report" e.g.

(See LVT # 5.4 for the many lies to the tribunal by the Ladsky mafia).

(7)- 25/01/2003–13h55 entry - "The suspect seems to think that the victim is behind the company who has sent the letters asking for money". Unbelievable! (see # 1, above)

(8)- 25/01/2003–13h55 entry, the July 09 version showed: "The suspect on her work headed paper wrote letters accusing the victim of theft".

The July 11 version shows the previously redacted text as "The victim spoke to the senior employer of the suspect's firm re. the accusations of theft and fraud which was on the suspect's company KPMG Accountants headed paper".

It refers to my 24.10.02 fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing and my 24.10.02 fax to the then London LVT. As is glaringly obvious from these faxes, these accusations are not true.

Pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim, I explained this: (i)- pgs 19 & 20 of my 13.08.09 letter, and (ii)- pg 9 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police; (iii)- pgs 30 & 31 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police...

post filing my Claim: (iv)- para.39(1) and (2) of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. (still in relation to "the accusation of theft" ).

I repeated my denial (having by then got hold of the 22 Jul 11 version) under (v)- para.17(2) of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat., and under

(vi)- para.11(5) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, stating: "The documentary evidence proves the falsity of this claim (and previously supplied text "accusing [Ladsky] of theft"

Stupidly, not thinking about it, I used the pre-formatted KPMG fax template. That provided a golden opportunity to the sadistic, satanic (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)), Rachman Ladsky who put immediately his racketeer Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), 'on the case...

- by asking him to send me, and KPMG, a threatening 28 Nov 11 letter (see below / My Diary 15 May 08 for detail). (See also below, in the same line, Silverstone's letter of 4 Feb 03)

(But, as it turned out - in my non-lawyer opinion: Rachman Ladsky et.al. did commit a theft - on a grand scale: c. £500,000 (US$882,000) (inc. the contingency fund): Overview Note 2 ; My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Major works ; LVT # 4 , # 7 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18 ; Brian Gale MRICS ; Extortion)...

- facts I stated - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 20 of my 13.08.09 letter, and (ii)- pg 9 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police;

(iii)- on pgs 31 & 32 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police;

post filing my Claim (iv)- under para.42 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat.; (v)- paras 29-31 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

(9)- 25/01/2003–13h55 entry - "These letters went to the Leasehold Valuation Valuation Tribunal and then got forwarded on to all the tenants, hence how the victim got hold of this".

As I also repeated endlessly in my documents: "Ladsky “got hold of my letters” because he IS the landlord for Jefferson House, NOT, as implied in the statement because he is “a tenant”.

I stated this on pg 31 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police. As to repeating endlessly that Ladsky is the 'landlord' - see section 1, above.

(10)- Having secured this 'very convenient' "crime report" against me on the police system, 2 days later, 'PC Neil Watson 206BS' (*), then sent me a bullying, threatening letter, dated 27.01.03, telling me, in effect, that I had better shut up and not challenge 'Dear Mr Ladsky' or "there may be further consequences".

To add to the intimidation and scare tactics, and ensure I 'obey orders', 'he' signed it "Crime Investigator" - see below.

Evidently, in addition to having 'never heard' of: (i)- the Data Protection Act 1998; (ii)- the 1999 Police Code of Conduct in force at the time - the "Crime Investigator", PC Watson, had not also heard of

(iii)- s.1(1)(3) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 that prohibits sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety’, and of (iv)- s.7(3A) that prohibits 'aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring harassment' (added to 'his' 06.02.03 letter).

(*) I viewed this as a 'Ladsky style' / letter dictated by 'the Brotherhood'. My assumption: from PC Neil Watson's handwriting, including of the address on the envelop v. the wording of the threats in 'his' letter e.g. "it would be remiss of me..."; "or there may be further consequences".

This letter is referred to under the 12/02/2003-10h44 entry as: "A letter was originally sent warning the suspect of his (sic) behaviour". I view the fact that it was not recorded at the time it was sent, and its 'description' as intended to further seal the "crime report" against me.

I ignored the letter, viewing the police has having no sense of the ridicule (see below).

(11)- 06/02/2003–11h06 entry: PC Neil Watson, claimed falsely Have attended address nkr have left note for susp to call me” - as I never found "a note" from him.

What he did, was send me a 06.02.03 chaser letter - he failed to record - asking me again to contact him.

(12)- As the only contact I am prepared to have with the police is in writing (or else, record the conversation, as I did on 16 Oct 10 - which proved to be a very wise decision: QB # 4(2)3), I sent this 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me".

(13)- The police continued to lie in its last entry of 12/02/2003–10h44, by KF Foley stating - falsely “OIC has attempted to make contact with the suspect but this has been fruitless - as, on that day, it had received my 11.02.03 letter. WHY? It then closed down the report.

Note that, concurrently, frustrated by the fact that the 27.01.03 letter 'from' PC Neil Watson, "Crime Investigator" had failed to achieve the objective of scaring me, one week after he filed his so-called 'complaint', Ladsky had also put his other flunkey, his racketeer solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, 'on the case' by asking him to send me this 04.02.03 threatening, malicious and defamatory letter.

In this letter (in which he described Ladsky as "the tenant of Flat 35"), Silverstone claimed, among other, that "The due process of law is under way to claim the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you" - see below.

(So "proper" that, 8 months later, he knocked off more than £8,000 from the demand - leaving £6,350 (US$9,900) that was still not legally due and payable - CKFT # 4).

(14)- Note also that several key pages are missing from the 22 July 11 version.

Before the 29 Jul 11 so-called 'hearing', I raised the issue in my 24.07.11 letter to the police - on which I copied the court.

In the context of my 30.08.11 Appeal Application, I raised the issue under para.18 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and para.15 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request. WHY was this also ignored? (see snapshot under kangaroo court # 6).

(15)- Under para.11 his 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat (QB # 4(3)) to have my 19.04.11 Claim struck out, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner claimed that "The police investigated Ladsky's complaint".

Considering the dictionary definition of 'investigate' v. the fact that, using the comment from the 27.01.03 police letter, the police did not 'get my side of the story' - as it ignored my 11 Feb 03 letter, and then closed down the report falsely claiming that "[I had] not responded"...

- it is glaringly obvious that the police did not 'investigate' the so-called 'complaint. I rejected this blatant lie and discussed the undeniable evidence in support of my position under paras. 29-33 and 43-45 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.

In the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order, like a parrot, Her Majesty's Master Eyre repeated the Met Commissioner's claim under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence: "In the event, no charges were brought against the Claimant" - by writing, under Reason 3(2) that "the police took the matter no further".

As I wrote under para.51 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request (under which I refer to paras in my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. where I discuss it), the police did "take the matter further" as it processed a criminal charge against me of a “Confirmed”, “Substantiated Offence of Harassment” against me – ...

making the criminal charge of harassment ‘stick’ against me - by falsely claiming that I had 'a history of doing this. I also repeated this under paras.110(3) and 113 of my 17.10.11 Request.

(*) Subsequently endorsed by Her Majesty's Justices Lang and Mackay: 06.10.11 and 24.10.11 Orders (QB: # 4(7)2 and # 4(7)3). My (identical) Comments are attached to each Order.

(16)- Other examples of glaringly obvious false (and outrageous) claims by Her Majesty's Met Commissioner / his officers and staff:

Due to the comments being also relevant for the 2007 "crime report", the following are those that relate specifically to the 2003 "crime report". For the rest of the relevant comments, see # 3, KP # 9, below.

(1)- Para.11 of his 23.05.11 Defence: that "the police complied at all times with the data protection principles in relation to my personal data" ; "It was processed in accordance with my rights under the DPA" ; "My personal data is accurate, adequate, relevant".

(My reply: paras 27 & 28 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request) (Snapshot: breach Data Protection Act 1998)

Para.23:

  • Processing of the 2003 report is not unlawful; it does not accuse me of anything; it records accusations made by another individual. The complaint was properly recorded as harassment
  • It is admitted that the police has not responded to some of my written requests for precise details of the complaints against me. It is not required by the DPA to do so”.

(2)- Re. the lies about providing me with the data - as per my rights - see above, 2002 "crime report".

(17)- As I wrote under paras.37 & 67 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat., and para.77 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, in accepting Ladsky's accusations against me, the police failed to refer back to its 2002 "crime report":

  • (i)- 28/02/2002-14h00 entry, which reports: "Ms Rawé continues to make allegations against Ladsky claiming he is harassing her because she is complaining about over charging of excessive maintenance costs.
  • She believes that a deception is being practised surrounding these costs”;
  • (ii)- 26/03/2002-13h42 entry - "Ms Rawé still insisted that Mr Ladsky is harassing her and other people living at Jefferson House..."

However, when it comes to 'Dear Mr Ladsky', then the police has no problem referring back to its previous "crime reports" for the purpose of recycling and, in process, endorsing the false accusations against me...

- and doing this in spite of its 2003 "crime report" stating, on the 'Suspect Elimination' page that I have been "Eliminated" - see Section 3, below

And, in the same way that Her Majesty's police turns a blind eye to Ladsky's criminal offences (*): harassment, fraud, false accounting, malicious communications, etc.,...

it also turns a blind to s.5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 that states that false reporting to the police is punishable by imprisonment.

(*) As the Law Society threw in my face following my complaint against Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Jeremy Hershkorn and Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel: "They are clearly acting on the instructions of their client". (Doc library # 2.5 and # 2.6)

(18)- I repeat ALL my comments, under # 2, KP 7, above - about Her Majesty's Queen's Bench judiciaries unlawfully and perversely dismissing ALL my claims,...

and the European Court of Human Rights endorsing their actions - in breach of the European Convention, while also ignoring the Data Protection Directive of the European Parliament.

Back to list

BACKGROUND TO ABOVE INTRODUCTION AND KEY POINTS - 2003

On 25 Jan 03, at 13h30, Andrew Ladsky reported me to Her Majesty's Chelsea police for "using abusive language towards him" (My Diary 30 Jan 03).

What actually took place was that, 50 minutes earlier, as I was coming out of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp', totally ignoring him, he provoked me by saying "Better luck next time!", followed by a sarcastic laugh. I told him 'where he could go' (Specifically: "Go fuck yourself!").

I assumed he was referring to the impending then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 'hearing' on 5 Feb 03, and that he had it ‘sewn-up’. (Subsequent events with the tribunal: summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law, including 'its' 'summary of the case' - proved my assessment to be correct).

(NB: In the same way that he could count on the support of 'his brothers' in West London County Court (snapshot under Kangaroo courts) e.g. after the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing', on 27 Aug 03, Ladsky called me a "Loser!")

Ladsky had therefore run along immediately to his henchmen at Chelsea police in order to file 'his complaint'.

Keen to continue helping a 'brother' (see 2002; other residents), Her Majesty's Chelsea police proceeded immediately - before contacting me - with processing, on its system, a "Confirmed" "Substantiated Offence of Harassment" against me.

For this purpose, it added the lie that I had 'a history of doing this' (*) (I discovered this as a result of getting the "crime report")

(*) To count as 'an offence', s.7(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires the conduct to have taken place on at least 2 occasions.

See above Key Points in the 2003 "crime report"

This so-called 'complaint' by evil Rachman Ladsky was intended to scare me from pursuing my challenge of his 07.08.02 application at the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing', and was also motivated by 'retribution' / revenge.

In fact, 3 weeks previously, on 3 Jan 03, Ladsky had told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I AM GOING TO GET YOU THIS YEAR!".

I repeat my Comments under section # 1, above, about Ladsky launching into vendettas.

What did the mentally deranged (*), consumed by greed, Rachman Ladsky want to "get me" for?

My 'daring' - 'me' with 'my profile' - to stand-up to him - through his gang of corrupt racketeers - and interfere with his fraudulent plans

(*) I am not a specialist, but the conduct of this man since 2002 (including with my fellow leaseholders) suggests to me that he is, at a minimum, an extremely sick sociopath. (What kind of person would cite him as 'role model' for their children?):

  • ... followed by a list of diktats (I ignored) that included "payment of damages to Mr Ladsky, which must be substantial...payment of our client's costs on an indemnity basis" and, if "[I did] not comply with these requirements [it had] firm instructions to commence proceedings" ...

To seal the 'criminal offence' against me, (as in the case of the other 2 "crime reports": 2002, section 1, above; 2007, section 3, below), the police falsely and deliberately describes Andrew David Ladsky as as "MY NEIGHBOUR" (see section 1)

Having processed this 'very convenient' "crime report" against me on its system, 2 days later, Her Majesty's PC Neil Watson 206BS (1) then sent me a bullying, threatening letter, dated 27.01.03 - stating:

“The police have been informed by a Mr Andrew Ladsky that you verbally abused him in public over some sort of dispute revolving around your premises”.

After referring to 'a witness', he wrote: ”…I am aware I only have his side of the story, however, if events occurred as he described them, then an offence would appear to have been committed by you.

Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police. (2)

I wish to make it clear that my role in this is purely neutral at the moment, but it would be remiss of me not to advise you of the following: Please avoid (if you can) any confrontation with Mr Ladsky or there may be further consequences(3)

"Neil Watson PC206BS - Crime Investigator" (2)

(1)- I viewed this as a 'Ladsky style' / letter dictated by 'the Brotherhood'. My assumption: from PC Neil Watson's handwriting, including of the address on the envelop v. the wording of the threats in 'his' letter e.g. "it would be remiss of me..."; "or there may be further consequences".

(2)- In fact, he had already done that - see KP # 1, above

Hence, without having my side of the story, he immediately "records a complaint against [me] on the police [system]".

Very clearly, no concern here about: "acting only on the basis of established facts" - as stated in the 11.07.02 reply to me from Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (above, # 1).  

And, obviously, another of his comment in his letter that "[I] must appreciate that officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure when investigating a case such as this" - did not apply in this instance either.

(3)- A very blatant threat intended to shut me; don't challenge our dear 'brother', or else....

What "other consequences" had already taken place by then?

(4)- And this was intended to add further to the 'fear element' to ensure that I 'obey orders'....

...because that mafia operates as fully integrate team with Ladsky (Overview, above)

I laughed on receiving the 27.01.03 letter as I visualised the scene:

a (short) man, standing in a police station, saying:

"Mr Policeman, a woman swore at me"  

(Or was it just a phone call to Kensington & Chelsea police, or through 'the Brotherhood'?)

I also laughed at the police for having no sense of the ridicule (as I captured under para.31 of my 19.07.11 MPS Witness Statement) (*)

(*) In what I view as an attempt to cover this, added to, I contend, the objective of 'demonstrating' that I have been 'persecuting' the 'poor' "intimidated" 'Dear Mr Ladsky' 'for a long time':

under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence, Her Majesty's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, claimed that Ladsky's 'complaint' also related to my website.

Under para.7 of my 14.06.11 Reply I pointed out that it was false, as I first launched my website in Sep 06. In spite of my doing this, Stephenson repeated the false assertion, under para.11 of his 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck-out.

My not responding to the 27.01.03 letter led the "Crime Investigator", to continue to harass me, by sending me another letter, dated 06.02.03, stating "...please contact me" (Key pt # 11, above)

Obviously, the above comment in Harris' letter of 11.07.02 - continued to not apply in this instance.

In the light of the 2nd letter - and because the only form of communication I am prepared to have with the police is in writing (or by recording the conversation, which proved to be a very wise decision in Oct 10) - I opted to send this 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me".

The police ignored my letter (key pt # 8, above). WHY? Further, on the day it received it, it closed down the report claiming falsely that I had 'not responded'. WHY?

This 'complaint' was motivated by vengeance (see above) and Her Majesty's police obliged 'Dear Mr Ladsky' - and, to this day - continues to do so, thanks to the conniving and conspiring with some of Her Majesty's judiciaries in the Queen's Bench Division.

To add to the intimidation and scare tactics, one week after his 'complaint' (and as he had done in the case of 2 my fellow leaseholders who had 'dared' report him to the police for harassment), Ladsky had his solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT (who described Ladsky as "the tenant of Flat 35"), sent me a malicious, threatening 04.02.03 letter - repeating Ladsky's false accusations to the police and threatening / claiming, among other:

"...this is not the first incident of this description and that indeed, there have been two other occasions" (NB: To make it stick under s.7 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

"This behaviour constitutes a clear and unequivocal breach of covenant under the terms of your underlease and should there be any repetition or further complaint concerning your conduct our client company wishes to make it clear that they will take injunctive steps prior to other proceedings being formalised to restrain you from causing a nuisance at the property"

(NB: v. "the conduct" of his client, "the tenant of Flat 35" : examples of his harassment: (i)- of me - "at the property" ; Persecution # 1(4)(16) ; (ii)- of my fellow leaseholders - "at the property")

"To date you have made quite improper and defamatory allegations regarding the probity of our client company and also of Mr Ladsky" (NB: see above, Lanny Silverstone's letter to me of 28.11.02 and to my then employer KPMG)

"The due process of law is under way to claim the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you".

(NB: So "proper" that, 8 months later, he knocked off more than £8,000 from the demand - leaving £6,350 (US$9,900) that was still not legally due and payable- CKFT # 4).

And that racketeering vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) does this with the blessings of its so-called 'regulator': the Law Society = the sector's fertiliser for malpractice that holds the - general - view that "They are clearly acting on the instructions of their client" (Doc library # 2.5) - and there is - very clearly - no point reporting them to the police (section 6, below)

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! = Brotherhood (= same experience as with the courts, etc.)

(*) I was proven right on that - as I subsequently discovered that this is exactly how the police mafia described him - see below.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(3)- In 2007 - following, yet another malicious, so-called "complaint" against me by Andrew Ladsky - continuing with its wilful discrimination against me - without ever contacting me, and consequently, totally denying me the right to defend myself against the false accusations -...

...Her Majesty's Notting Hill police processed - without any evidence in support - a criminal charge against me of a “CONFIRMED”, “SUBSTANTIATED RACIAL INCIDENT”, “ANTI- SEMITIC RACIAL INCIDENT”, “HATE CRIME – RACE, RELIGION”.

Concurrently, with the objective of obtaining the closure of my website, one of its staff, falsely posing as 'a police officer', sent malicious, libellous emails to my website Host, falsely accusing me - without any evidence in support - of having 'committed a crime', as well as branded me "a Nazi"- "Crime report" CR:5605839/07

 

SUMMARY - 2007 "CRIME REPORT" - CR:5605839/07

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

Introduction

(As I discovered in July 09), on 15 Mar 07, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky filed (yet again) another so-called 'complaint' against me, this time with Her Majesty's Notting Hill police. As in the case of Chelsea police, the main station is Kensington police.

Demonstrating the very malicious intent, as well as conniving, collusion and conspiring with Ladsky (with, very clearly, in the background, 'the Brotherhood' as the key driver, because I had 'upset' some of its corrupt elements)...

Her Majesty's police never contacted me at any point in time about this so-called 'complaint'.

Note that I reported this in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, under paras 5c, 9.f, 21.a, 56 and 67p.

As I highlighted under para.63 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner failed to address this in his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(3)).

See how, under Reason 3(3) of 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order Her Majesty's Master Eyre covered-up the police for its failure to contact me, by claiming that it had: QB # 4(6)(1)

Instead - and after it had processed the so-called "crime report" against me on its system - 'a trainee detective constable' of the Community Support Unit, sent a highly vicious, malicious, libellous, racist, xenophobic email of 16.03.07 to my website Host (see details, below ; events surrounding the emails are captured in My Diary 20 Mar 07)

(See also below: the police's claim that (i)- it "investigated" the 'complaint' ; (ii)- has "No suspicion of false reporting").

This so-called 'complaint' by the "Jewish" Rachman Ladsky stemmed from his blind determination to get my 'extremely inconvenient' website - of which he is the root cause for its existence- closed down - something he had been trying to do desperately - because of what it exposes about him and the support system (see below)

(His vendetta against me started in 2002. It includes filing a prior so-called 'complaint' against me in 2003. These are typical of the treatment he dishes out: Section # 1)

(More detailed background, below)

I did not know that a "crime report" had been processed against me.

Following submitting a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request (below, # 5.1), in Jul 09, I received this heavily redacted "crime report", CR:5605839/07.

From there followed, over a period of nearly one year, my soul-destroying battles with the police to get it to implement my rights (detail under section 5, below), leaving me with the only option of issuing proceedings.

After a further 8 months of very intensive desk research, as a Litigant in Person, I filed a 19 Apr 11 Claim against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner (as well as 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission and Home Secretary) - in the London's Queen's Bench Division.

After I had filed and served my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat. in response to the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck out (QB # 4(3)) (as evidenced by the police's letter of 21.07.11 stating that it was "sending [me] the bundle")...

- on 22 Jul 11, the police supplied me with this significantly less redacted (and incomplete) version of the 2007"crime report" (discussed, below, under the Key Points).

The reason for unlawfully withholding the data from me is glaringly obvious: it provides very strong support to my key conclusions:

(i)- Her Majesty's police connived and conspired with Andrew David Ladsky;

(ii)- it, and the behind the scene 'Brotherhood', 'I have upset' - intend to continue using this (and above "crime reports") against me - including evidently attempting to secure the ‘ultimate solution’: getting me sectioned (failing getting me killed outright: My Diary 15 Jun 09 ; 14 Jun 14))

I repeat my Comments, above, under Overall Outcome on me.

In discussing the "crime report" I refer to documents issued pre and post filing my 19 Ap11 Claim - see section 1, above, for the list.

Key points:

(1)- I again stress - without contacting me at any point in time - and before contacting my website Host, Her Majesty's police processed the 2007 so-called "crime report" as a criminal charge against me of a

Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion

The 19/03/2007–17h59 entry states: " there is no crime made out and therefore this should be classed as a racial incident and nothing more”. WHY? (See below the Met Commissioner's outrageous denial of the impact of this classification)

Even the less redacted 22 Jul 11 version of the "crime report" does not provide one iota of evidence in support of any of these accusations - nor, indeed, in support of any of the other accusations and opinions of me contained in the report.

WHY? Because it does NOT exist.

For further proof of this, see the Queen's Bench Division page, # 4(6), for how the twisted psychos have attempted to create it.

By contrast, what the "Jewish", Rachman Ladsky has done to me, as well as instigated against me since 2002 through his stable of racketeers certainly qualifies (among many others) as 'Hate crimes'...

... - and his so-called "complaints" against me to his flunkies as being, in part motivated by racism - because I am of part German descent and "he is Jewish".

It is glaringly obvious from Her Majesty's police's emails of 16.03.07 and 20.03.07 to my website Host (below), and 16/03/2007-18h56 entry in the "crime report" (below) that brand/ed me "a Nazi" "because of my franco-german (sic) origin".

Hence, offences under: (1)- the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: s.1(1), (2) (extracts); (2)- the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: s.32(1)(a) (extracts), linked to s.2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

(2)- In this "crime report" (as well as the other two: 2002, section 1, above ; 2003, section 2, above), Andrew David Ladsky is falsely and deliberately described by the police as as "MY NEIGHBOUR" - instead of his true role: 'LANDLORD' (see section 1).

One of the tricks used in this "crime report" to support the lie (see others, below), under the 16/03/2007-19h07 entry: "Mr Ladsky has his flat on the market and will be moving". This was redacted in the July 09 version.

Which "flat" would that be? (Owners identity # 4 ; Block sale of apartments ; My Diary 9 Jan 07 ; 13 Jul 10)

(3) The objectives in doing this are glaringly obvious from the content of the "crime report" - and particularly so from what had been redacted in the July 09 version:

  • (1)- to save Ladsky from having to explain - and therefore avoid probing him on any of his false, highly malicious, vicious, slanderous accusations against me and opinions of me (to which Her Majesty's police added 'very liberally') - because doing so would bring up highly inconvenient data that would totally discredit his so-called 'complaint';
  • (2)- to continue portraying me as waging some kind of "racist" vendetta against him, as well as somebody 'who defaults on her contractual obligations';

1. In relation to objective 1, as well as 2, above:

(1) - Top of 'the league table' are Her Majesty's police's claims and assertions - that were redacted in the July 09 version - under:

As I wrote under: (i)- para.21 of my 29.08.11 MPS Witness Statement.; (ii)- para.11(2) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, “This claim is hilarious considering what Ladsky has done and instigated against me (and fellow leaseholders) since 2002”.

Under the former, I wrote: “Clearly, it was blocked to prevent me from challenging it: its aim is to add weight to the fictional story that ‘poor Mr Ladsky’ is an innocent victim”.

How unbelievably sick is that rotten to the core police mafia, to describe Ladsky as "MY VICTIM" (e.g. Extortion)...

- added to the fact that 'it' operates as a fully integrated with him and his thugs (Overview, above).

(Note that my objecting to the above (among many others), was described by Her Majesty's judiciary as "[amounting to] a most obvious attempt to re-write history" (QB # 4(6)(1)). This demonstrates how sick and insane the British State has become) (including, very clearly, not having a sense of ridicule).

(2) - A very close 2nd in 'the league table' - that was also redacted in the July 09 version - is under the 15/03/2007-16h14-‘Primary Investigation Details: 6’ entry, the police's claim of having:NO SUSPICION OF FALSE REPORTING"

Under para.23 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I wrote: "In the light of the numerous false, malicious accusations and opinions of me in the report, it is abundantly clear why this entry was blocked. How can the police make this categorical statement given that it never contacted me, the owner and author of the website - at any point in time?".

I followed this by listing paragraphs in my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. in which I had repeated this fact on several occasions, because I was so shocked by the conduct of the police. I then added: "It does provide irrebutable confirmation of the police’s blind determination to make this so-called “crime report” stick against me".

I repeated this under para.11(1) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request and, under this para, as well as under para.72 xii, reported that, “my asking this [question] led the police's Counsel [Nicholas Wilcox] to look at Master Eyre” (This took place at the 29 Jul 11 so-called 'hearing')

Note that in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, I repeated several times that the police had not contacted me at any point in time: I captured this under paras 5c, 56 and 67p.

Note also that, having failed to contact me, under the 19/03/2007-17h59 entry the police wrote: "This matter is now complete".

While the overt objectives of the blanket endorsement of the "crime report" are to portray me falsely and maliciously - and therefore libellously as:

...the subvert objective is to endorse and cover-up the unlawful actions, lack of action and decisions, as well as corruption by HM's tribunal Panel and judiciaries (by dismissing my evidence against the content of the "crime reports").

The pursuit of these objectives continued in the context of my Claim - as glaringly obvious from: the 9 Aug 11 Order (QB # 4(6)), and subsequent endorsement in the 6 Oct (QB # 4(7)2) and 24 Oct 11 Orders (QB # 4(7)3).

(3) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - "A website www.leasehold-outrage.com was created in response to a large service charge..."

FALSE - as was very prominently stated on my website at the time of the so-called 'complaint' in Mar 07, I launched it because:

(i)- Having paid, Rachman Ladsky, through CKFT, 19.12.03 letter, £6,350 (US$9,900) I did not legally owe either (Overview # 3), Ladsky asked his racketeer 'managing' agents, the then Martin Russell Jones, to send me - a totally unsupported 24.05.04 invoice, stating "Brought forward balance: £13,430" (US$23,680) - I ignored because I knew it was bogus.

My 19.12.03 payment was (finally) sealed in a 01.07.04 Consent Order endorsed by Wandsworth County County.

3 months later, Martin Russell Jones, sent me - a, yet again, unsupported 21.10.04 demand, to which £1,000 was added - bringing the unsupported demand to £14,405 (US$25,400).

Hence the same amount as in the 29.11.02 claim filed in West London County Court, preceded by the 17.07.02 demand - as though no "Part 36 offer" (of 21.10.03 through CKFT) had been made, accepted, paid and endorsed by the court (see Extortion).

My also ignoring it because I knew that it was, likewise, fraudulent and motivated by 'retribution', led to a repeat of the demand in a 16.11.04 'invoice. Note that in my 31.12.03 letter I had informed Martin Russell Jones of my payment to CKFT. (Overview # 6) (My (identical) Comments are attached to the invoices)

(ii)- Because of my very traumatic, horrendous experience with Her Majesty's judiciaries and court staff in West London County Court, (added to the 'get lost' from HM's Head of the courts), instead of turning to the court for help, I very naïvely turned to the so-called 'regulators', hoping I would get better luck. Well, I most definitely did not: Doc library.

(iii)- Enough was enough. After 5 years of battling - in vain - as a last resort attempt to get justice and redress - as per my legislative rights - I launched my website (Overview # 8).

In rejecting the assertion, I captured the above explanation - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 26 of my 13.08.09 letter, on which I included extracts from the Home page to my site and (ii)- pg 24 of my 20.09.09 letter, both to the police;

(iii)- pg 43 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice to the police ;

post filing my Claim (iv)- paras 61-66 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat and, under para.67, wrote that, in the process of accepting the comments from Ladsky, the police failed to refer back to its entries in the 2002 "crime report".

Of course, capturing the above facts in the "crime report" would be highly detrimental to Andrew David Ladsky. So, best capture the lie about me, because: who am I relative to the corrupt elements in 'the Brotherhood'? Further, it provides a 'useful' prop to 'the story' that I am waging some kind of vendetta against Ladsky, and "suffer from mental issues"

(4) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - "...which [I] regarded as excessive and unfair”.

The facts speak for themselves - Indeed, consider this comment in the light of the fact that, as detailed above, Ladsky knocked off more than £8,000 in his 21.10.03 "Part 36 offer" through.

(Note also that, one year previously, Ladsky had his racketeer solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, send me a malicious and illegal 07.10.02 letter in which he threatened to forfeit my lease (copy of definition) and contact my mortgage lender if I failed to "pay immediately" the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded) (CKFT # 1).

Documents in which I reported and discussed the above - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pgs 26 & 27 of my 13.08.09 letter - detailing the breach of various statutes ; (ii)- pg 24 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 43-45 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice ; post filing my Claim (iv)- para.66 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat;

(5) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - “This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly”

Understandably, the 15.07.02 unsupported demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) caused a 'mini-revolt' among the Jefferson House leaseholders - leading Ladsky to, 3 weeks later, file his 07.08.02 application in the then London LVT "to determine the reasonableness of the £736,200 demanded".

"Quite significantly": an understatement, as 'massively' is more appropriate.

Indeed - in my non-lawyer opinion - the demand amounted to a c.£500,000 theft (US$882,000) (LVT # 4 ; Overview Note 2 ; Major works ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18)

Corrupt mafia: Can't you see what your Rachman 'brother' Ladsky said which YOU captured in YOUR report?

How about asking him to explain that v. the amount paid by the leaseholders of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp': (i)- 29.08.06 letter from the ICAEW ; (ii)- Pridie Brewster # 18.

I reported this pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pgs 27 & 28 of my 13.08.09 letter ; (ii)- pg 24 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 45 & 46 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice ; post filing my Claim (iv)- paras 42 & 64 of my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat.;

(6) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - “In order to challenge this charge it actually cost a considerably larger sum of money than [I] saved”

It very certainly did: £30,000 in relation to the then London LVT hearings... to challenge a - fraudulent - 'service charge' demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (Overview # 2 ; LVT # 4.3)

(and a further c. £10,000 to fight the equally fraudulent claim in West London County court e.g. WLCC # 11) - ((1)- my 12.07.09 complaint (form) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; (2)- my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice - Legal sector # 9)

I challenged 'Steel Services' i.e. Ladsky's 07.08.02 application to the tribunal - as per my rights - as stated under pt 64 of the 17.06.03 LVT report: "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered (summary # 1.1).

But, Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - as well as the masonic-controlled tribunal - were not expecting me to do that - as evidenced by their actions (tribunal summaries: Events; Breaches of the law).

Documents in which I commented on this report entry - including emphasising 'my rights', pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pgs 28 & 29 of my 13.08.09 letter, in which I wrote: "Correct. Thanks to the collusion between the LVT, Ladsky and his aides";

(ii)- pg 14 of my 20.09.09 letter, stating: "...considering that a c.£500,000 theft [US$882,000] actually took place, it is a dire indictment of the so-called ‘justice’ system of this country that I was not able to recoup my costs. So, yes, keep that statement in!" ;

(iii)- pgs 46 & 47 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice ; (iv)- para.69 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.

(7) - 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - "Each household was to pay a certain amount of costs through the service charge. The suspect took exception to this and went to a tribunal to get this charge reduced” .

FALSE - re. the 1st sentence see Extortion and Kangaroo courts. Re. the 2nd sentence, I repeat the above evidence about "my legal right to challenge it".

This entry is intended to portray me further as somebody who will go to any length to avoid complying with my contractual obligations. (The same defamatory portrayal was made in the 2003 "crime report" - above)

I raised the falsity of the assertion, as well as malicious intent in doing this - amounting to a scurrilous attack on my reputation - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 32 of my 13.08.09 letter ; (ii)- pg 16 of my 20.09.09 letter ;

(iii)- pgs 53 & 54 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice, stating: "Oh dear! I take "exception" at my (and fellow leaseholders) being ripped-off to the tune of £500,000 [US$882,000]. How inconsiderate of me!";...

post filing the Claim (iv)- under para 74 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., stating under para.75 that "contrary to what is implied, I was far from being the 'only objector" - and referred to the West London County Court claim of 29.11.02 against 14 apartments.

In addition, while the tribunal took steps to ensure that as few of my fellow leaseholders as possible would be able to challenge 'brother' Ladsky's application (LVT # 1), many nonetheless communicated their objections to the tribunal (LVT # 1.4).

Her Majesty's police cannot even read what it writes: contrast this entry with the above.

(See LVT # 5.4 for the many lies to the tribunal by the Ladsky mafia).

(8) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - “Since this she has been extremely upset and is seeking compensation and retribution for her time, money and effort”

The input from extremely sick and very twisted minds - clearly intended to support 'the story' of my waging some kind of vendetta against "my victim", 'Dear Mr Ladsky', my 'poor' "vulnerable" "Jewish" "neighbour" 'I' "intimidate" and 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster".

I denied this, stating that I was seeking justice and redress - the rights I have been told by the State, I have the right to demand - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 29 of my 13.08.09 letter ; (ii)- pg 14 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 47 & 48 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice ; post filing my Claim (iv)- para.69 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat;.

(v)- paras 24 and 25(1) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request; under the former, in response to Reason 2 of the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre who endorsed the entry, by stating that "the tribunal proceedings left [me] with a burning sense of grievance towards Mr Ladsky: indeed, [I] recently described him as "that evil, greed-ridden monster"

I wrote: "This assertion is false. Any "grievance" I had was towards the London LVT for failing to perform its duty by not providing me with an effective remedy" (QB # 4(6)) .

Ditto about adding to portraying me libellously as an individual who defaults on her contractual obligations.

What thoroughly evil, corrupt to the core monsters!

(9) - 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - "About four years ago Mr Ladsky organised for refurbishment on the flats...the suspect is still obviously not happy with what Mr Ladsky initiated". (Ladsky's name was redacted in the July 09 version. I thought it was MRJ's name = the trick had worked!)

Under para.20(3) of my 29.08.11 Wit.Stat. I wrote that "organised" and "initiated" "contrast significantly with the above implied role of 'being brought in'".

Further, that: "The ‘story’ that Ladsky was an outside party [he most definitely was not: CKFT-Intro] was concocted in order to substantiate the false accusation of my being ‘a racist’, an ‘anti-Semite’".

And, under para.20(4): "As with all the other malicious accusations, the police failed to challenge Ladsky, including failing to ask him for documentary evidence in support of his claim. This provides another example of the intended trickery in describing Ladsky as my “neighbour".

I also raised this under paras 11(4), 24, 25(2) and (3) and 72(3)(vii) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

(10) - 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - “Despite the values of the flats going up a considerable amount the suspect is still obviously not happy with what Ladsky initiated”

Intended to further portray me as 'a trouble maker', waging a vendetta, the previous sentence in the 16/03/2007-18h56 entry falsely claims that I filed the application with the tribunal (above)

pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 32 of my 13.08.09 letter, I wrote, as the police "looked at my website" (16/03/2007-18h56 entry) "it evidently approves, in my non-lawyer opinion, of a c. £500,000 fraud [US$882,000] by Ladsky et.al. and their aides, that helped generate a multi-million £ jackpot" ;...

...(ii)- pg 16 of my 20.09.09 letter, I commented on the police "readiness to capture, false, disparaging comments and innuendos about me v. its blind eye attitude to Andrew Ladsky and his puppets’ criminal offences against me (and my fellow leaseholders) under:

(iii)- I repeated some of the above, adding other facts, on pgs 55 & 56 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice;

post filing the Claim: (iv)- para. 76 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., and (v)- para.72(3)(ix) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, stating: "I resent the implication by the police that I should have turned a blind eye to the fraudulent demand. This is not my value system".

(11) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - “It is only recently that the victim has spent time examining the web site that the suspect has created in order to "tell her story" (This text was redacted in the July 09 version)

FALSE - Under para.20 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I wrote that it was "not true - as evidenced by, among others, the 03.10.06 fax from Ladsky's solicitors, Portner and Jaskel" - and referred to para.20(4) of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. under which I discussed it.

This therefore took place 5 months before Ladsky's so-called 'complaint' against me.

Consider also that: (i)- the police "looked at my website": 16/03/2007-18h56 entry;

(ii)- at the time of the relaunch of my website, on 25 Dec 06, i.e. more than 3 months before Ladsky's so-called 'complaint', I had (not surprisingly) reported this extensively on my website.

Consequently, in the light of this, added to the fact that it had been redacted, I cite this entry as another example of the police's collusion and conspiring with Ladsky in portraying him as my 'poor' "vulnerable victim" and "neighbour" that 'I' "intimidate".

(12) - 15/03/2007–16h14 entry - “The reason why the victim believes he has become a target for abuse on the web site is that the victim was involved with the business who was carrying out the repairs and improvements that were paid for with the service charge”. (This text was redacted in the July 09 version)

Unbelievable! when you consider Ladsky's control of his gang of racketeers.

Under para.20(2) of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I wrote: "This is another false, malicious accusation. It was blocked to prevent me from challenging it". In my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, I raised this under paras 11(4), 21, 22, 24, 25(2) and 72(3)(vii).

Note also how the entry 'nicely' ties in with the 2003 "crime report" entry of 25/01/2003–13h55:"The suspect seems to think that the victim is behind the company who has sent the letters asking for money".

But, the ploy by Ladsky and his henchmen is seriously undermined by the subsequent 16/03/2007-18h56 entry that states that Ladsky "organised" and "initiated the works" (above)

(13) - 16/03/2007–19h07 entry - “There is a previous CRIS 5602261/03 which relates to an harassment of Mr Ladsky by Ms Rawé no further action was taken at the time.

But it shows Ms Rawé used to swear at Mr Ladsky when seeing him in the communal area. This was when the service charge dispute first arose”

Intended to give additional 'weight' to the claim of my waging some kind of vendetta against Ladsky. Note that Her Majesty's police recycled, and, in the process, endorsed the false, malicious and scurrilous accusation against me - in spite of its 2003 "crime report" stating, on the 'Suspect Elimination' pg that I had been "ELIMINATED" (see, above, # 2 KP 17).

I raised this under paras 13 and 80 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. And, under para.82, quoted from para.6 of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck out (QB # 4(3)) : "the mere fact that an allegation is recorded on the CRIS does not mean that the allegation is treated as being true” -

adding: "the above undeniably demonstrates the paramount importance of my ensuring that – as per my rights - the data it holds about me is accurate, fair, lawful and adequate – as it very clearly ignores the final classification of its reports..."

I repeated the same thing under paras 51(4) and 72(3)(xi) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

It is 'fascinating' to contrast Her Majesty's police's readiness to refer back to its previous "crime report" (in the process ignoring its own classification) - in order to pile on even more scurrilous and defamatory comments against me in its "crime report"...

v. its failure to do the same thing in relation to its 2002 "crime report" following my complaint against Ladsky.

WHY? Because it contains 'inconvenient' evidence that seriously undermines Ladsky's so-called 'complaints' against me (see Section 2, above).

Hence, in the same way that the police has "No crime report against Mr Ladsky". The wonders of 'the Brotherhood'!

2. In relation to objectives 2 and 3, above:

(1) - 'Classification-Method' “A web page has been created which is alleged to contain anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-Asian pictures and text”. (This pg was withheld from the July 11 version).

(2) - 15/03/2007-16h14 entry - “…there are parts of the site which are alleged to be extremely upsetting and insulting"

(3) - 15/03/2007-16h14 entry - “There are a number of sections which are alleged to be of a racial nature and numerous references by name to the victim”

(4) - 15/03/2007-16h14 entry - “The sections of the web site that the complaint relates to is headed “My Diary” 2002-2007. The specific remarks and pictures that are being complained about are contained throughout…”

These accusations are false and malicious. Her Majesty's police has not provided one shred of evidence in support.

In my documents I repeated this endlessly, and that they were therefore trumped-up accusations intended to defame my name, character and reputation:

pre-filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim - (i)- pgs 25, 29 and 30 of my 13.08.09 letter ; (ii)- pgs 10-12, 14, 31 of my 20.09.09 letter ;

(iii)- pgs 42, 43, 49 and 50 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice ;

post filing the claim: (iv)- paras 68, 70 and 71 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit. ; (v)- para.72(1), (2), (3)(iii)(iv)(vi) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

Considering: (i)- that the police "looked at my website" (16/03/2007-18h56 entry) ; (ii)- what was on my website at the time (in those days, I was updating it on a near daily basis, including:

- it is truly 'fascinating' to note what Her Majesty's police 'saw' on my website - that was not on it - v. what was on it that it did 'not see'.

(5) - 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - "I have spoken to Mr Ladsky and he has informed me that the mention of Pigs and Monkeys relate to the words the Nazi's used referring to Jewish people during the holocaust.

This is obviously very offensive, Mr Ladsky is Jewish (*) and believes this is what the suspect is referring to". (Ladsky's name, as well as "Jewish" were redacted in the July 09 version).

(*) In name rather than in practice

(NB: Claim of being 'Jewish': see also - below: (i)- next entry ; (ii)- police's emails of 16 Mar and 20 Mar 07 to my website Host - which, likewise, also brand me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin")

This is an outrageous, false and very sick, racist, racially motivated accusation (because of my Franco-German origin) that is totally unsupported.

I would never do such a thing - unlike satanic (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)), Rachman Ladsky who, evidently, has no qualms trading on the soul of dead people by pulling out the 'Holocaust card' when his fraudulent activities and Rachman method of operating are exposed.

By early 2006, I had become very angry at being dogged, hounded, tracked and monitored - on a daily basis - 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 scum and thugs who are doing this to me (‘pigs’ being the recognised, derogatory term for police officers).

As I wrote in My Diary, on 23 Aug 06 "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” (see snapshots - Persecution # 2 ; my 19.07.11 Home Office Wit.Stat. that includes events I attribute to the police and security services).

In addition, by then, I had, unsurprisingly, lost all respect for the police as a consequence of my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002 and 2003.

In my documents, I repeated endlessly my denial of this accusation in the "crime report" and the emails (below) - stating that: it was abundantly clear from the context in which I used the terms on my website - and from the lack of evidence in support of the accusation - that it was a false, malicious, vicious accusation against me intended to defame my name, character and reputation.

I also commented on the fact that Her Majesty's police was branding me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin":...

pre-filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim - (i)- pgs 3, 31 and 36 of my 13.08.09 letter ; (ii)- pgs 12, 13, 32, 33 and 36 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 52 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice;

post filing the Claim: (iv)- paras 49, 50, 52, 55, 77 and 120 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit., asking, under para.77 re. "and believes" (as Ladsky's name was blocked out in the July 09 version), "why the police had not asked me";

(v)- para.24 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat., stating: "It is another example of the police accepting Ladsky’s accusations at face value, without any challenge whatsoever";

(vI)- para.72(1), (2), (3)(ii)(v) and 85 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

See QB # 4(6) (also below, under KP #6(3)) - for the fact that, during the 29 Jul 11 Application 'hearing', Her Majesty's Master Eyre attempted to create the 'evidence' in support of the false accusation. Having failed, he nonetheless repeated it in 'his' 09.08.11 Order and, in the process, endorsed it.

WHY? (aside from corruption): because this, with the "neighbour" description - are key to the game plan of 'the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood' in portraying me as an "Anti-Semite" waging some kind of "racist" vendetta against "my" 'poor' "Jewish", "vulnerable and intimidated victim", Ladsky - and thereby to holding "criminal charges" against me.

And because the British State perceives "Jewish people as making cherished contributions" to this island-kingdom = the Jewish lobby is showering Her Majesty's government with lots of money.

(6) - 16/03/2007-19h07 entry - "Mr Ladsky states that Ms Rawé is Franco-German as is well aware his is Jewish". (This text was redacted in the July 09 version).

(Note also the above entry)

FALSE. As I wrote under para.25 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat.: "I did not know that Ladsky said to be Jewish until the police’s e-mails of 16.03.07 and 20.03.07 to my website Host [# 4, below].

This entry is intended to add weight to the fictional story that I am an anti-Semite". How was I meant to know he said to be 'Jewish'?

(NB: I am 'such an anti-Semite' that I HAD A JEWISH DOCTOR FOR 37 YEARS!)

I contend that, in addition to the above, other, equally false and malicious entries are intended to support further libellously portraying me as "a racist"- "Anti-Semite" e.g.

in the 3 "crime reports", the description of Ladsky as "my neighbour";

2002 "crime report":

2003 "crime report" - in addition to the criminal charge (QB # 4 Reason 3(2)) (and recall that I have been denied the right to defend myself against the accusations):

2007 "crime report" - in addition to the criminal charge (QB # 4: Reason 3(3), Reasons 3(2)) (and recall that I have been denied the right to defend myself against the accusations)

What thoroughly evil, criminal vermin (*) from the gutter - the whole lot of them! Yep! "Welcome to [extremely sick] corrupt Britain!"

(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

(7) - 19/03/2007-17h59 entry - "Victim advised re. civil procedures defamation of character". (This text was redacted in the July 09 version).

This is hilarious. As the police "looked at my website" (16/03/2007-18h56 entry) on which, at the time, I had placed - and discussed letters - Ladsky had asked his racketeer solicitors, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to send, threatening defamation proceedings:

(i)- a 28.11.02 letter to me, and a 28.11.02 letter to my then employer, KPMG (Section 2); (ii)- a 04.02.03 letter to me (Section 2)

I cite this as another example of Her Majesty's police having no sense of the ridicule.

However, it is part of the conniving and conspiring between Her Majesty's police and Ladsky in portraying him as "my" 'poor' "vulnerable victim " and "neighbour", 'I' "intimidate" - and 'consequently': me as "the criminal". Hence, as with other entries, the reason for blocking it.

(8) - 15/03/2007-16h14 entry - "...[the website] appears to be becoming quite paranoid. She thinks the police may be following her as well as numerous people employed by her enemies"

(9) - 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - “Looking at the website it seems the suspect thinks she is being followed by either the police or Mr Ladsky. This is not the case and she is obviously extremely paranoid” . ("Mr Ladsky" was redacted in the July 09 version).

These are defamatory, malicious and scurilous expressions of opinions about my mental health - as I have a mountain of evidence in support of my assertion - as can be seen on my website e.g. snapshots under Persecution # 2 and Scum gallery - and I already had undeniable proof of it by the time of the March 07 'complaint'.

I captured some of this evidence in my 19.07.11 Home Office Wit.Stat. Note also Sergeant Avison's comment on 17 Oct 10 that he did not doubt that I am being followed.

How could the police deny it - given that it took over the lead role since at least the summer of 2005? (e.g. My Diary 2 Aug 05 ; 5 Aug 05) - for no other reason than the fact that I was fighting against the corrupt elements in 'the Brotherhood': My Diary # 2.5).

(NOTE also the media reports on many other individuals being under surveillance by the police and related - as well as other surveillance activities by this 'Stasi' state).

Looks to you as though "[I am] paranoid"?

In my documents, I covered it - pre-filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pgs 30-33 of my 13.08.09 letter, asking "On what basis do PC K O'Brien and TDC Simon J Dowling consider themselves entitled to make 'this assessment' about me, as well as deny my assertion?";

(ii)- pgs 15 and 33 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 51, 56 and 57 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice, stating "It is a despicable, sickening, morally depraved attack on my reputation". "What was the 'reward' to PC K O'Brien and TDC Simon Dowling for capturing this in the report?";...

post filing my Claim: (iv)- paras 72 and 73 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat; (v)- para.73(1) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request highlighting the evidence I have in support of my position and, under para.74, that the police was giving access to this false, malicious data to numerous parties.

(10) - 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - “I believe she may have some mental issues so will be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of her”

Not surprisingly, I am absolutely incensed that this and the above have been captured in the "crime report".

Portraying me as "mad" is something criminal vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) Ladsky has been doing for a long time e.g. My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08, 15 May 08,...

his malicious 26.03.07 letter to KPMG (# 3.5) , my then employer, in which he described me as suffering from "clinical paranoia".

(The one in very urgent need of psychiatric treatment is glaringly obvious from the snapshots under e.g. Extortion ; Persecution ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - added to those who assist him and protect him).

Portraying people as 'suffering from mental issues' is a typical British Establishment tactic it uses against those who 'dare' to stand up to it. Persecution (1)(4)(14) contains examples of other parties who have done this against me: my then employer, KPMG, and a psychiatrist who was batting for Ladsky and KPMG.

The objective? To get me sectioned - because, as very amply demonstrated by my experience the 'little people' who 'dare' stand-up against the 'big people' must be taught a lesson. In fact, the long-standing mantra is to "kill [me], zip up the bag, bring [me] to the morgue".

That bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption must be incredibly crowded.

(Examples of the British Establishment portraying other people as "suffering from mental issues" for 'daring' to stand up for what is right: (1)- Dr Shiban Ahmed, Alder Hay hospital ; (2)- Kay Sheldon, CQC ; (3)- Dr David Drew, Walsall Manor hospital ; (4)- Dr Hayley Dare, West London Mental Health NHS Trust.

Other examples of 'retribution' for 'daring' to stand-up against injustice: Whistleblowers ; 3 Apr 10 ; 21 Jul 10).

In my documents - pre-filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 34 of my 13.08.09 letter I wrote that it was "outrageous", and on pg 36 that "behind the scene, TDC SJ Dowling et.al. were... evidently attempting to secure the 'ultimate solution': getting me sectioned";...

(ii)- pg 16 of my 20.09.09 letter to the Police Public Access Office (# 5.1, below), on which I wrote: "This entry provides proof of the extent of the moral depravation that pervades K&C police, and of the extent to which it and its behind-the-scene backers will go to help a ‘certain’ thief get away with a multi-million Pound jackpot".

Also: "I am so incensed by this and previous claims, added to your highly dismissive, arrogant and contemptuous reply, that it leads me to provide comprehensive evidence in support of my position that this “expression of opinion about my mental condition” is malicious, vicious, scurrilous and libellous, and the action a despicable, morally depraved attack on my reputation".

I followed this with 4 pages which include, among others, brief detail of events with Dr-AG; Dr-MP; and my ex employer, KPMG;

(iii)- pgs 60 and 61 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice; ..

...post filing my Claim: (iv)- paras 13 and 14 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, stating "And the worst part of it was that I had not been given the chance to put 'my side of the story"; paras.62, 79, 85 and 86 under which I referred to my prior documents, stating under paras 79 & 85:

"As the police has ignored my request for the contact detail of social services, I am extremely worried about the information held about me by social services, and wonder what damage it has / will cause me in future";

(v)- paras 5 and 73 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, repeating my concern under para.105.

It amounts to a breach of my rights under s.7(1)(a)(iii) of the DPA.

Note that, in my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, under paras.9.c. and 76.c. I specifically referred to the above entries. In his 23.05.11 Defence, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner ignored them (QB # 4(2))

(NB: Considering what they have ALL done to me since 2002, I think that 'I' should be the one who "speaks to social services" to report them as "suffering from [extremely serious] mental issues")

(11) - 15/03/2007-16h14 'Primary investigation details: 5 entry - "Suspect is alleged to be extremely paranoid and is said to sleep with a knife beside her bed". (This text was redacted in the July 09 version).

Under para.22 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I wrote: "Why was this blocked? Was it because the police did not like the reason I gave on my website for doing this (NB: My Diary 2 Aug 06) – which undermines its objective in capturing this?

My reason for doing this is detailed in my 19.07.11 Wit.Stat. in response to the Home Secretary’s Application at para. 61" - under which I wrote: "as it is abundantly clear to me from my experience with the police that, if I do get attacked, there is no point my phoning the police".

In fact, the Kensington police mafia helped Ladsky get access to my apartment to cause yet more criminal damage, as well as ensured that he was provided with a key: My Diary 17 Jan and 3 Feb 14.

(4)- The glaringly obvious objective of the highly vicious , malicious, libellous, racist, xenophobic emails to my website Host - that also branded me "a Nazi" - were to scare my Host into closing down my website

(The events are covered in detail in My Diary 20 Mar 07).

Note that prior to sending the emails to my Host, Andrew David Ladsky had been trying desperately to get my website closed down - see below.

Note also what was captured in the "crime report" at the time: # 3(2), above)

(1)- 16.03.07 email

Having 'very conveniently' processed the so-called "crime report" against me (from 15 March 07)...

- instead of contacting me, 'TDC Simon J Dowling' of the 'Community Safety Unit’ Notting Hill police (*) sent a highly vicious, malicious, libellous, racist, xenophobic email of 16.03.07 to my website Host, stating:

Subject: “Website with anti semitic (sic) views - http://www.leasehold-outrage.com".

"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. I am the police officer dealing with this crime. I would therefore be grateful if this site could be taken down”.

As is glaringly obvious - without providing any evidence in support - 'Dowling' accused me - to my website Host - of having 'committed a crime' - by stating: "I am the police officer dealing with this crime".

Further, he also brands me "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin".

Using the case of Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772; [2003] EMLR 218,

in which Brooke LJ identified 3 possible defamatory meanings that might be derived from a publication alleging police investigations into the conduct of a claimant...

– there is no doubt that “Chase level 1” , defined in the context of the case as: "meaning that the claimant was guilty” - applies in the case of this email.

Indeed, there is no ambiguity that I am accused - to my website Host - of having 'committed a crime'.

It was too much of a coincidence that somebody in my borough had made this 'complaint' to my local police. It had to be Ladsky. (No, as stated earlier, contrary to Ladsky's assertion, I did not know he said to be 'Jewish').

The probability that it was him was confirmed when he made the same false, malicious, vicious, scurrilous accusations against me in his 26.03.07 letter to my then employer: KPMG (# 3.5).

(*) According to para.12 of the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application to have my Claim struck out (QB # 4(3)), 'TDC' stands for 'Trainee Detective Constable'.

While not an expert, this looked to me like Dowling had impersonated a police officer - as I wrote on pgs 4 & 5 of my 02.02.10 letter to the Met Commissioner. In support of my conclusion, I quoted from a Channel 4 (TV) programme, Dispatches, on 21 Sep 09 adding that, "while the role of a Community Support Officer is evidently not standard, I am sure that it does include "investigating a crime"".

In fact, looking at the Police Reform Act 2002: s.38A- 'Standards powers and duties of community support officers' ; Sch.4- 'Powers exercisable by police civilians', Part 1- 'Community support officers' (which expands on s.38), and Sch.5...

- it is abundantly clear that the statutory functions of a 'Community Support Officer' do not include those of a (bent) investigating officer, and nor, indeed, do they include those of a (bent) 'medical practitioner').

Note the text captured at the bottom of the 16.03.07 email: “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”.

Evidently, 'Dowling' considered himself at liberty to ignore this policy, in the same way that 'he' evidently considered himself at liberty to ignore:

with the rest of the mafia at Kensington police:

WHY? Because they know that they have no need to fear any kind of sanction from: Her Majesty's Met Commissioner and Home Secretary (# 5.2, below, and following filing my Claim: QB # 4 , QB # 5(7)) ; judiciary (QB: # 4(6) , # 4(7)2 , # 4 (7)3) ; IPCC (QB # 5).

Evidently, they are also exempt from considering the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Hate Crime Manual and the Crown Prosecution Service's "specific guidance on the prosecution of hate crime" - which "covers racist...crime"

(2)- 20.03.07 email

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' 20.03.07 email, the 'trainee detective constable' Simon J Dowling backed down somewhat on 'his' accusations. Still using the 'subject' line from 'his' (above) 16.03.07 email: “Website with anti semetic (sic) views”, 'Dowling' wrote:

Thanks for your reply, yes there are laws relating to false reporting. The producer of this website is franco-german (sic) in origin [1] and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people. (2)

Obviously the victim we have has picked up on this as he is Jewish (3)

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.

Could you let me know who deals with any complaints about websites in the US and I’ll pass this on to the victim

(1)- Also captured in the "crime report" (above, KP(3)(2)(6))

(2)- Re. "pigs and monkeys", it is a false, highly vicious accusation (see above, KP(3)(2)(5))

(3)- In name rather than in practice

Hence, 'Dowling':

  • 1. Still did not provide any evidence in support of 'his' accusations against me.
  • 2. Continued in his attempt to scare my website Host into closing down my website.

The only thing that has been entered in the "crime report" in relation to the emails is under the 16/03/2007-18h56 entry - "I have contacted the host HostDime to have the site shut down and await a response".

(3)- Hence:

  • No mention whatsoever in the "crime report" of the fact that my Host responded;

In addition to my absolute denial of the accusations, saying that they are "sick, trumped-up accusations",

pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim, I raised the above points: (i)- pgs 31, 33-37 of my 13.08.09 letter ; (ii)- pgs 2, 12, 13, 17, 18, 28, 33, 34 and 36 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 38, 40, 42, 52, 58, 59, 61-65 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice;

post filing my Claim: (iv)- paras 49-55, 83 and 120 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.; (v)- paras 6, 11(3), 64, 65, 69, 70 and 72(2),(3) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

WHY is there no record of the exchange of emails in the "crime report"? Because, having failed to achieve its objective of getting my website closed down (see also below), 'the Brotherhood' can still spin 'its story'.

Proof: In spite of the endless number of times I discussed the above emails in my documents filed in court (as detailed above), including emphasising my website Host's reply - under Reason 3(3) of 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 Order, Her Majesty's 'Master Eyre' wrote: "...After unsuccessful attempts to get the web-host's co-operation..." (QB # 4(6))

In my 17.10.11 Request, under para.68, I highlighted the fact that "Master Eyre had failed to take the evidence into account, because my Host's response was evidently 'not like' and, evidently, this is still the case"; under para.69 I highlighted the fact that none of the email exchange with my Host had been recorded; and, under para.70, restated the Master's 'blindness' to the evidence.

(4)- How did Her Majesty's Met Commissioner describe the above emails of 16.03.07 and 20.03.07?

Under paras.9 and 38 of his 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4(2)) (repeated under para.12 of his 30.06.11 Application) (QB # 4(3)), he stated:

"As part of [the police's] investigations, Dowling made inquiries to [my] website host.

He indicated the nature of the allegations he was investigating, but did not suggest that [I] was guilty of the alleged conduct

"It is denied that TDC Dowling's emails amount to harassment for the purposes of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997...

These emails were sent in the ordinary course of an investigation into complaints made against [me]. They made no accusations against [me]"

Contrast these assertions with:

  • in the 20.03.07 email (above): "Could you let me know who deals with any complaints about websites in the US..." .

(Re. the claim of having "investigated" the 'complaint' - see below)

I commented on the glaringly obvious lies: (i)- para 56 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat;

(ii)- in my 17.10.11 Appeal Request: under paras 75, 117 and 118, under which I challenged Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's claim, under para.4(ii) of his 23.05.11 Defence that "he does not need to respond to my Claim re. breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, because this statute does not give rise to a cause of action which can be brought under Pt 7" (*),

and under paras 119-126, stating under para 120: " in sending the emails, the police's intention was clearly to scare my website Host into closing down my website by causing "distress or anxiety " [Protection from Harassment Act 1997] - and it knew that the information was false" [Malicious Communications Act 1988]

(*) Position endorsed by HM's Judiciaries: (i)- pack of lies MPS 09.08.11 Order (QB # 4(6)); (ii)- 06.10.11 Order (QB # 4(7)2) and (iii)- 24.10.11 Order (QB # 4(7)3)

(5)- Her Majesty's police resorted to going through the then Serious Organised Crime Agency!

16/03/2007-18h56 entry - "The site is based in the US therefore I may well have to go through SOCA to do this after having consulted with them"

SOCA: The then Serious Organised Crime Agency! Unbelievable!

Her Majesty's police does that against 'ME' - the glaringly obvious victim of organized of organized crime - BY the Andrew David Ladsky mafia - and does nothing against any of its members!

(NB: As revealed in July 2013, SOCA classified criminal activity by big business as "secret" and, of course did nothing about it)

In fact, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson - under a statement of truth (QB # 4(2)) - 'justifies ' the processing of his web of lies so-called "crime reports" against me: below, KP(9).

Recall also that the police did not contact me at any point in time. See also below, re. the police's claim of having "investigated" the 'complaint'.

Of course, it also ignored s.5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 re. reporting false information to the police - as it contributed amply itself.

(5)- The objective of getting my website closed down by any means is also confirmed in the "crime report"

19/03/2007-17h59 entry: "I am still trying to get the website closed down"

I cited this entry as additional proof of the objective of the emails,

pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 35 of my 13.08.09 letter; (ii)- pg 17 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pg 64 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice;

post filing my Claim: (iv)- para.56 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat ; (v)- para.75 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

(A typical British state response to 'inconvenient' websites is to close them down e.g. Nigel Ward's)

And, of course, this is what Rachman Andrew David Ladsky wanted (and had been desperate to do over the previous 3.5 months - as he was not 'flavour of the month' within 'the Brotherhood'):

16/03/2007-18h56 entry - "Mr Ladsky wants her to stop and take the site down"

(6)- 'The Brotherhood''s anger at my website, and its conniving to 'get me' is evidenced by:

(1) - 16/03/2007–18h56 entry“There is a lot of slanderous comments on the site mainly directed at Ladsky but also at K&C police and even MPs, the Prime Minister and DPM. Also against solicitors and many others”

As I pointed out on pg 33 of my 13.08.09 letter to the police, and para.78 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., at the time, there was no recording on my website, hence use of "slanderous" is incorrect.

In my documents I kept denying the accusation and pointing out that no evidence had been supplied in support - because none could be provided

pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 33 of my 13.08.11 letter, and (ii)- pg 13 of my 20.09.09 letter;

(iii)- pgs 57 & 58 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice;

post filing my Claim under (vi)- para.78 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.; (v)- para.72(3)(x) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

In relation to this false accusation, and related Reason 3(3) of the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre that "The page is no more than a sustained tirade against Mr. Ladsky and his supposed allies" (QB # 4 (6)5(2)) , under para.58 of my 17.10.11 Request, I wrote:

"If my ‘criticisms and accusations’ (definition of ‘tirade’) were not justified and true, I would no doubt have had proceedings filed against me a long time ago.

As to my being ‘angry’ (definition of ‘tirade’), I leave the court of ‘Joe public’ to judge me on that in the light of my experience since 2002 with various State parties and other parties in the professions". [Case summary ; Extortion ; kangaroo courts]

(2) - 15/03/2007-16h14 - Primary investigation details: 4 Victims' entry: "Numerous potential victims exist for all this allegation". (This text was redacted in the July 09 version).

Under para.11(9) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request I pointed out: "This claim is not defined".

On 9 Aug 11, before going into Master Eyre's room , Nicholas Wilcox, MPS' Counsel, told me: "Master Eyre is not pleased with your website". I replied that it was "obvious"

(3) 'Suspect elimination' pg states that I was "Eliminated" on "17/07/2008"

This is 16 months after the so-called "crime report" was processed against me, and the 19/03/2007-17h59 entry stated: "This matter is complete".

What were they hoping to achieve? Trying to catch me out!

YES! That's what one of the Masons' local police flunkeys attempted to do in 2008, provoking me when I was in an internet café, by telling me: "Hitler should have killed all the Jews, 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)?).

However, as evidenced by what took place with Her Majesty's Master Eyre, on 9 Aug 11 - see QB # 4(6), 'the Brotherhood' has evidently not given up on its objective of portraying me as waging some kind of "racist" vendetta against Andrew David Ladsky,...

my 'poor' "vulnerable" "Jewish" "victim" and "neighbour", that 'I' "intimidate", as well as 'dare' describe as "that evil, greed-ridden monster" - hence: on making its "criminal charges" stick against me.

Yep! This is definitely psycho territory!

I commented on this - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pgs 40 & 42 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 Notice by stating: "I have NOT committed "a crime". Hence, there is NOTHING to "eliminate";

post filing my Claim: (ii)- para 10 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, noting the 16 months lapse.

(4) 'Suspect elimination' pg claims that I was "Notified by PS G Latham"

This is not true. The only contact I had about being “eliminated” was through the Head of Security of my then employer, KPMG (*), who, 5 weeks after the police’s last contact with my website Host phoned me to say “The police is not going to pursue it. Isn’t that good news?

By 'amazing' coincidence, 2-3 days previously, on my website, I had given prominence to the events with the police.

(*) At the suggestion of the partner heading my group, I had given him a copy of the 2 emails (above) (KPMG # 3.4).

I reported this - pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim: (i)- pg 37 of my 13.08.09 letter;

(ii)- pgs 17, 18, 31 and 37 of my 20.09.09 letter, stating "providing undeniable proof that communication about me took place between the police and KPMG" (of course it did; they were in cahoots with each other: KPMG Intro);

(iii)- pg 41 of the supporting document to my 02.06.10 s.10 Notice;

post filing my Claim: (iv)- para.84 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. ; (v)- para.66 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request.

(7)- Note also that several key pages are missing from the 22 July 11 version. Before the 29 Jul 11 so-called 'hearing', I raised the issue in my 24.07.11 letter to the police - on which I copied the court.

In the context of my 30.08.11 Appeal Application (QB # 4(7)), I again raised the issue under para.26 of my 29.08.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and para.15 of my 17.10.11 Request. WHY was this also ignored? (see Kangaroo courts)

(8)- Under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence and para.13 of his 30.06.11 Application Witness Statement to have my 19.04.11 Claim struck out, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner claimed that "The police investigated Ladsky's complaint".

Considering the dictionary definition of 'investigate' v. the fact that the police never contacted me in relation to this so-called 'complaint' - it is glaringly obvious that the police cannot claim that it "investigated the complaint".

I totally rejected the Met Commissioner's assertion under paras.48 and 58 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.

In my Particulars of Claim, under paras 5.c, 9.f and 21.a, I very clearly stated - and repeated - that the police had not contacted me following this so-called 'complaint'. I was so shocked by this conduct by the police that I repeated this on several occasions in my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat: paras 8, 49, 58 and 84 - and discussed the undeniable evidence, under paras 48-59.

Unbelievably - but typically from 'the Brotherhood' - in spite of this evidence, Her Majesty's Master Eyre, wrote under Reason 3(3) of 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (*) that "The police took the matter up with me" (QB # 4 (6)(1))

(*) Subsequently endorsed by HM's Justices Lang and Mackay: 06.10.11 Order (QB # 4(7)2) and 24.10.11 Order (QB # 4(7)3). My (identical) Comments are attached to each Order.

It demonstrated, yet again, blatant collusion and conspiring between Her Majesty's judiciaries and police, including endorsing its outrageous claim of "No suspicion of false reporting" (QB # 4(3))

Under para.63 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, I wrote: “…as with other evidence, the learned Master deliberately failed to take into account at all the fact that the MPS never contacted me at any point in time in relation to the 2007 ‘complaint’".

Continuing to act like a parrot, in 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order, HM's Master Eyre repeated the Met Commissioner's claim under para.9 of his 23.05.11 Defence: "In the event, no charges were brought against the Claimant"...

- by writing, under Reason 3(3) that "the police took the matter no further, but - again not surprisingly - recorded it "as a racial incident and nothing more" (QB # 4(6))

(NB: Note the "not surprisingly" = further evidence of Eyre's collusion with the police).

Under paras 72, 73, 110(3) and 113 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request I reiterated, by referring to my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., that the police did"take the matter further" by processing a false, criminal charge of a “Confirmed”, “Substantiated Racial Incident”, “Anti-Semitic Racial Incident”, “Hate Crime – Race, Religion against me...

- and by "speaking to social services to see if they are aware of [me]"

To this I could have added: and by dogging me, hounding me, tracking me, harassing me, persecuting me - on a daily basis, as well as interfering with ALL my means of communication e.g. my 19.07.11 Home Office Wit.Stat.;

snapshots: Persecution # 2 ; Persecution # 3: phones ; post ; emails ; computer ; bugging my apartment.

Note also the requirements of s.1(4) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (extracts, under # 2, above)

(9) Other examples of glaringly obvious false and outrageous claims by Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson / his officers and staff:

(NB: The following is also applicable to the 2003 "crime report" - under KP(16))

(1) Para.11 of the 23.05.11 Defence (QB # 4 (2)) that

  • "the police complied at all times with the data protection principles in relation to my personal data";
  • "It was processed in accordance with my rights under the DPA";
  • "My personal data is accurate, adequate, relevant".

(My reply: paras 27 & 28 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request) (Snapshot: breach Data Protection Act 1998)

Para.23:

  • "the police did not deny me “the right to defend myself against the accusations and opinions of me
  • The MPS is unable to comment on the alleged falsity of Mr Ladsky’s claims or on their allegedly being malicious or misleading”.
  • (My reply under paras 52 & 53 of my 17.10.11 Request)

Para.13:

  • "I demanded the total destruction of the 2003 and 2007 reports because I disputed the allegations against meThe police is not, however, in breach of the DPA by its recording of those allegations…”.

Para 34(ii):

  • …the MPS’s refusal of my requests for the destruction of the 2003 and 2007 reports were lawful.

Para 11(ii):

  • My personal data was obtained for a specified and lawful purpose (namely the investigation of alleged offences) and not further processed in a manner incompatible for that purpose

Para.11(iv)

"It is being kept for as long as is necessary for the aforementioned purpose"

I replied under paras 90-96 and 107 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, including quoting case law.

And, using the Met Commissioner's claims of compliance with the Data Protection Principles (DPPs), under para.11(i) of his 23.05.11 Defence, under paras 28 and 107 of my 17.10.11 Request, stated that:

  • "I obviously did not give my “consent” / “expressed consent” to the processing of false, malicious data against me;
  • processing these false data cannot be claimed to be justified for “the administration of justice”,
  • “in the pursuit of legitimate interests”,
  • in “the exercise of functions conferred by enactment”, or

Under para.93 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, I captured my assumption that the above para.11(ii) and (Iv) of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's Defence "refer to s.29(1) of the DPA: processing of data (a) "for the prevention or detection of crime" (*); (b) "for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

I followed this by, under para.94, stating case law and, under para.95, wrote:

"As the police is ‘so concerned’ about the “prevention and detection of crime”:

why, in the face of the very extensive amount of ‘black-on-white’ evidence on my website of false accounting, fraud, harassment, malicious communications, etc. against Ladsky and his aides (which the police “looked at”: 16/03/2007-18h56 entry) - has it failed to take action? [NB: see Extortion]

Why, in spite of this evidence is it treating Ladsky as ‘the victim’ and - without any supporting evidence – treating me as ‘the criminal’?"

Which I could have followed with: Why aren't they in prison? See an example of a case that has similarities - in which the individuals ended-up with prison sentences of up to 32 months - for doing much less than that.

(*) The claim of retention of data for "the prevention or detection of crime" is one of the police's favourite excuses e.g. the case of Mr Ken Cook (Media page)

(2) Re. the LIES about providing me with the data - as per my rights - see above, 2002" crime report".

(10) I repeat ALL my comments, under # 2, KP 7, above - about Her Majesty's Queen's Bench judiciaries unlawfully and perversely dismissing ALL my claims, and the European Court of Human Rights endorsing their actions - in breach of the European Convention, while also ignoring the Data Protection Directive of the European Parliament.

Back to list

BACKGROUND TO ABOVE INTRODUCTION AND KEY POINTS - 2007

This so-called 'complaint' by Rachman Ladsky stemmed from his blind determination to get my 'extremely inconvenient' website - of which he is the root cause for its existence- closed down

(I don't think he was 'flavour of the month' within 'the Brotherhood' for this outcome. However, it has obviously not stopped them from standing by him - ever since):

  • Hershkorn ignored my 05.10.06 letter asking for evidence in support. The ISP caved in under the threats, and closed down my site on 6 Oct 06 (PJ # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06)
  • Following my re launching the site on 25 Dec 06, for several weeks afterwards, Hershkorn tried to repeat his prior achievement by using the same formula in an endless stream of threatening, malicious emails to my current website Host (Overview # 9) and, very clearly: failed.
  • Frustration at being unable to force my website Host to close down my website, led Ladsky to ask Hershkorn to send me a malicious letter dated 16.02.07, threatening me with bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture (taking the apartment from me) (copy of definition) and “costs” if I failed to pay "immediately £8,937" (US$15,800) to "Rootstock Overseas Corp"...
  • That was not enough: having just filed his so-called 'complaint' against me with his henchmen in the local police, for good measure, he also sent a 26.03.07 letter to my then employer, in which he repeated some of his false, malicious, vicious accusations against me to the police: KPMG (# 3.5).

Now all that 'Dear Mr Ladsky' had to do was: sit back and watch 'the Brotherhood' do 'its work' (see e.g. Home page-Overview)...

...while nonetheless:

(i)- getting his racketeer solicitors, Portner and Jaskel, to continue subjecting me to extremely vicious, cruel and sadistic treatment - while setting-up one of his scum in an attempt to 'speed things up';

(ii)- continuing to have his 'dogs' hound me, track me, harass me and monitor me - in tandem with the State's goons (e.g. Persecution # 2)...

... - in order to be of assistance to his 'brothers'.

As well as undertake other forms of harassment and persecution, such as e.g. flooding my apartment: My Diary 20 Jul 07 (preceded by a failed attempt: 6 Feb 07). (There have been many more that have not failed: Persecution 1(4)(16)).

(His vendetta against me started in 2002 (see also Extortion , Persecution). It includes filing a prior 'complaint' against me in 2003. These are typical of the treatment Ladsky dishes out: Section # 1, above)

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(4)- While I, and at least 4 of my fellow leaseholders have complained to Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police of suffering harassment from Andrew David Ladsky (a criminal offence), 'mysteriously' there are "no crime reports" against him on the police system.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

•  An identical letter, dated 11 Oct 01, sent by Ayesha Salim Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), to Leaseholder A (Elderly Resident) and Leaseholder B who had reported Andrew David Ladsky to Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police:

"We are solicitors instructed by Mr Andrew Ladsky.

We are informed that on the morning of Thursday 11 October 2001, you reported our client to the police alleging that he had illegally entered flat [x] and flat [x] Jefferson House. Our client was visited by Mr D Malam from the Chelsea Police Station"

"The police have investigated the allegation and have determined that it was completely unfounded" (NB: What a surprise! = 'the Brotherhood')

(NB: It 'seems' to me that this letter from Ayesha Salim amounts to harassment and intimidation of witnesses - which is a very serious offence).

The Elderly Resident also told me that the person he had (subsequently ?) spoken to at Kensington & Chelsea police was Emma Whitlock, number 92ES (NB: confirmed under the 08/04/02-14h32 entry of the 22 Jul 11 version of the "crime report" - which had been blocked in the Jul 09 version). (Section 1, KP (3), above). He gave me a telephone number, suggesting I contact her. I never did.

•  Leaseholder H, Head of the Residents Association (see also 13 Dec 00 "Notice by landlord"). Leaseholder E confirmed this to me in an email, dated 18.04.02, in which she wrote:

"Chelsea Police advised her off the record to fold her tent and go - which she did, can't blame anyone for that.

Her experience was horrendous, I was there on two occasions on Jan & Feb last year with this harassment going on"

•  Resident K - which DC DR Adams, CID, told me himself on 25 Mar 02 - as captured on pg 2 of my 02.04.02 letter to DI Paul Webster, and proven under 26/03/2002-13h23 entry of the 22.07.11 version, for which the text had been redacted in the July 09 version (Section 1, KP (3), above).

•  'Apparently', the tenant of Leaseholder E also complained against Andrew Ladsky sometime in 2004 (see Other Residents section)

Are there other leaseholders / their tenants who have reported Andrew David Ladsky for harassment to Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police?

Oh! but of course, as Her Majesty's Detective Inspector Paul Webster wrote in 'his' 23.04.02 letter to me (section 1, above)

"No crime report has been reported to this police borough regarding Mr Ladsky, in your letter you mention that other occupiers had complained this may be correct, but there are no reported crimes about Mr Ladsky"

Under the 26/03/2002-13h32 entry of its "crime report" (section 1), the police claimed that "Ladsky has not been the subject in any crime reports" (# 1, KP(3), above)

- v. Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's claim under para.6 of his 30.06.11 Application (QB # 4(3)) that "All the details supplied must be recorded". (Discussed e.g. under para.42 of my 17.10.11 Request for Oral Hearing of Permission to Appeal) (QB # 4(7)).

As I wrote on pg 13 of my 13.08.09 letter to the police: K&C police claims to have no “crime report” against Ladsky - because it evidently ensures that none are recorded.... as harassment is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – it follows that Kensington & Chelsea police has not only failed to record these acts by Andrew Ladsky – it has also failed to take action

(NB: In the same way that the police failed to take action against politicians and celebrities who abuse children).

In addition to which:

There is the harassment and intimidation of Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau because it tried to help us.

Comparison of the 14.11.01 letter it received from 'Steel Services' with the 25.01.01 letter 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 'SS', dated 02.01.01 was sent to Leaseholder A, the Elderly Resident)

(In his malicious, defamatory 03.10.06 letter to my then ISP, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, 'helpfully' confirmed what I knew from the time of what I view as the highly vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident: his client was Andrew Ladsky)

(As demonstrated by the experience of the above - anybody who 'dares' to stand-up to thoroughly evil, Rachman Ladsky is guaranteed to be subjected to ongoing harassment and, if they 'dare' to not give in, to extremely vicious, evil attacks intended to destroy the person (with the active help of 'the back-up system') - as evidenced by my experience. (Case summary)

The same applies to anybody who 'dares' help the leaseholders e.g. his harassment of Nucleus, Citizens Advice Bureau.

Like a leaseholder wrote me in her 01.11.02 letter (following harassment of her tenant by Ladsky):

"Ladsky acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims"

And Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police's position is that: "there is not enough evidence to take action against Mr Ladsky" ??? Yeah, right!

Contrast that with events in 2003 when Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him",

and in 2007 for "anti-Semitic comments", etc. - without being challenged and not providing any evidence whatsoever in support of his false, highly malicious accusations against me.

Add to that my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in October 2010, and following filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim...

...And "the evidence" on my side of the fence spells:

C O R R U P T I O N , C O N S P I R I N G and very active protection of a 'brother'

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(5)- My submitting a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to the police, under the Data Protection Act 1998, was the start of unbelievably soul-destroying battles over more than 2 years – amounting to criminal psychological harassment -

...and clearly demonstrating that the police continued to perceive me as a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights –

and doing this with the glaringly obvious endorsement of its high level executive: the Met Commissioner and Home Secretary and, 'of course', that of the police's 'poodle': the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission.

My avenues to justice, redress and protection have been blocked from the very beginning of my horrific nightmare (Home page - Overview) which, as detailed under Section 1, above, started with Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police in early 2002.

In reading this, bear in mind the police Code of Conduct in force in 2002, 2003 and 2007, and the Standards of Professional Behaviour, in force in 2009-10 - that were issued by the Secretary of State, and endorsed by Parliament...

- as well as the Home Office Guidance.

In each instance they apply to ALL police officers - regardless of rank.

 

(5.1)- In response to my 28.05.09 Subject Access Request, in July 09, the police's Public Access Office sent me 3 heavily redacted"crime reports": (i) CR:5604102/02 ; (ii) CR:5602261/03 ; (iii) CR:5605839/07.

This was followed by a 25.08.09 'Get lost!' 'in response' to my 13.08.09 evidence that proved - undeniably - that the processing was breaching my rights under the Data Protection 1998...and its July 2011 version proved that it had lied when claiming that the data it released was compliant with the Act.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

Under s.7 of the Data Protection 1998, I submitted a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request to the police's Public Access Office.

(In Jan 10, I did the same thing in relation to the Ministry of 'Justice'...and was, of course, subjected to the same treatment: Legal-Home # 9).

My Request to the police led to my receiving 3 heavily redacted "crime reports".

- with a 14.07.09 covering letter (posted on 20th July; hence, past the 40-day deadline), stating: "If you consider the information to be incorrect please write to the above address, stating your concerns clearly and concisely"

I replied on 13.08.09, highlighting, as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, text that was false, misleading, etc., and provided a 101 page bundle of 49 documents as justification in support of my demands.

For the content of the "crime reports", and my replies see, above: section 1- 2002 ; section 2- 2003 ; section 3- 2007.

It was the start of unbelievably soul-destroying battles over more than 2 years, and a continuation of the British State treating me like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL.

The below battles are: (i)- detailed under paras 86-112 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., issued following my filing a 19.04.11 Claim against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner;

(ii)- briefly referred to under para.108 of my 17.10.11 Request, following my filing an Appeal (QB # 4(7)) against the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (QB # 4(6)).

The 25.08.09 'reply' from the police to my above letter (NB: identified in the 22 Sep 09 letter as being from Jenna Neville) was a typical dismissive, contemptuous, self-regarding, power-corrupted, arrogant letter - that amounted to (yet, another typical) 'Get lost!':

"I have forwarded your concerns on to the Investigating Officer who will he feels necessary update the report, if this completed I will forward you a updated version".

As evidenced by what the police supplied me with on 22 July 11 (see "crime report" for 2002, 2003 and 2007), the claim:

"I can confirm after making enquiries there is no further information we can provide you with" - was also a lie.

Costing me yet, many more hours of my life (Doc library # 4.7), I replied on 20.09.09, labouring the points in my 13.08.09 reply, and emphasised my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 by providing comprehensive extracts. The police did not respond to my letter.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(5.2)- Raising the above issues at the local level of Chief Superintendent and Professional Standards, and eventually escalating them to the level of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner and Home Secretary - demonstrated the same blind eye attitude to, and glaring endorsement of the - unlawful conduct - resulting in the same 'Get lost!' outcome.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

I was livid by the content of the "crime reports" (2002, 2003 and 2007) (snapshots: Breach Data Protection Act) and the dismissive 25.08.09 'reply' (above).

With the aim of ensuring the enforcement of my rights, I copied Her Majesty's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, Kensington police on my 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 letters, and the 25.08.09 letter,...

stating in the header of my 20.09.09 covering letter: "Kensington & Chelsea police is not exempt from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998".

I listed my reasons in support of the header, in the form of 14 questions, ending with: "Last but not least – as your officers have familiarised themselves with the content of my website [NB: it "looked at [my] website"] - the right to turn a blind eye to criminal offences committed against me by Andrew Ladsky, including through ‘his puppets’ who “acted under his instructions” (Section 2 / Portner # 5.1). I followed this by citing various statutes as examples.

I concluded with "As the above are very clearly in breach of, among others, the Police Professional Standards, as Head of K&C police: what are you going to do in the face of this litany of outrageous, gross misconduct?

I also asked that "a letter is immediately sent to my website Host retrieving all the malicious, scurrilous and libellous accusations made against me....in the 16 and 20 March 2007 emails to my website Host (Section 3, above) – and that you copy me on this letter"

I repeated what I wrote in my 20.09.09 reply to the Public Access Office, that "If this proves necessary, I will follow this with legal proceedings as per my rights under s.14 of the Act".

It led to a 22.09.09 'reply' from Her Majesty's "Steve McSorley, A/ Chief Inspector" who, while he did not specify it, I discovered on the Kensington police website is/was Kensington police head of 'Professional Standards & Performance'...

"responsible for all matters relating to complaints, misconduct and civil actions. He also heads the Operational Performance Unit and leads on improving the borough's performance around Citizen Focus".

(NB: But when it comes to intimidation of the public in order to help 'a brother in need' , they are not shy to put their title (real or fictitious) on their letter e.g. in 2003: PC Neil Watson, "Crime Investigator")

Stating that "[I had] quite clearly expressed [my] concerns about accuracy to Jenna Neville at the Metropolitan Police Public Access Office" ,...

... in his 22 Sep 09 letter, Acting Chief Inspector McSorley 'suggested' "[I] contact the Information Commissioner if [I am] dissatisfied with her response".

I viewed this a continuation of the (typical) 'Get lost!', and an attempt to make me continue going on the ‘treadmill’ (which was, of course, continued - see below).

As I wrote under para.89 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat. (see below for context) (my Claim against the IPCC: QB # 5), “I knew I had the right under the DPA to ask the police to stop processing data about me that is inaccurate and detrimental to me – and a source of great distress – and that I could do this at any time. I also knew that the Act does not impose a requirement on a data subject to go through the Information Commissioner in order to do this

(NB:I also wrote this under (i)- paras.58(2) and (5) of my 29.08.11 Skeleton Argument in relation to my 30.08.11 Appeal Application (QB # 4 (7)) against the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order 'from' Her Majesty's Master Eyre (QB # 4(6));

(ii)- paras 107(1) and 108(2) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request - citing, in each instance, the case of R. (Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin) and, in relation to the latter, actually quoting from the case)

In my 08.10.09 reply, I challenged Her Majesty's Steve McSorley, heading my letter: "In light of your role at Kensington & Chelsea police: how do you explain your response of 22 September 2009?".

I noted the fact that he totally ignored both, the content of my 20.09.09 letter to Mark Heath, and of the supporting enclosures i.e. my 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 replies to the "crime reports" (above).

McSorley's dismissal of my rights led me to send an 08.10.09 letter to Mark Heath, heading my letter: "Do you endorse the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by Kensington & Chelsea police?"

Among other, in this letter I referred to the State's Equality and Human Rights Commission website, quoting extracts. (NB: I did not quote from the Parliament-endorsed police's Code Of Conduct and Standards of Professional Behaviour as I still needed to research - and digest - the voluminous amount of police-specific legislation - although it would clearly have made no difference).

I saw the lack of response as a continuation of the contemptuous and discriminatory treatment. It led me to send an 11 Nov 09 chaser letter to Mark Heath, and to Steve McSorley.

It led to a 17.11.09 reply from Chief Superintendent Mark Heath's Office that:

“The Borough Commander has asked Chief Inspector McSorley to write again to you in order to outline the previous advice given”.

(In my 28.11.09 letter (below) to Her Majesty's Met Commissioner and Home Secretary, I wrote: "In other words, evidently repeat to me the equivalent of the ‘Get lost! We don’t care!’" Of course, I was proven right (see below).

Absolutely determined to get my rights enforced and clear my name, I resorted to sending a ‘cry for help’, dated 28.11.09, to Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson and Her Majesty's Home Secretary, Alan Johnson.

As I wrote under para.94 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat: "I did this thinking: surely, the Head of the Metropolitan Police is going to take action when I tell him about my experience; surely he will see that my demands are legitimate; surely the Head of the umbrella organisation, the Home Office, will say: something has been going on there for a very long time; it must be addressed".

(NB: I know, how very, very naïve of me! My value system and theirs are light years apart).

To this effect, in this letter I provided an overview of my experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting police in 2002, 2003 and 2007, as well as reported my experience since submitting my 28.05.09 Subject Access Request.

To prove that I was not making it up, I supported my letter, to each of them, with 11 enclosures, amounting to 100 pages (*). Hence: another costly letter (Doc library # 4.9).

As can be seen from the list, they most certainly cannot claim that they 'did not know'.

(*) (1)- my 28.05.09 Subject Access Request; (2)- my 13.08.09 reply to the "crime reports"; (3)- the 25.08.09 'reply' from the PAO; (4)- my 20.09.09 reply; (5)- my 20.09.09 letter to Mark Heath;

(6)- the 22.09.09 'reply' from Steve McSorley; (7)- my 08.10.09 reply to McSorley; (8)- my 08.10.09 letter to Heath; (9)- my 11.11.09 chaser letter to Heath; (10)- my 11.11.09 chaser letter to McSorley; (11)- the 17.11.09 letter from Heath's Office).

In my letter, I also quoted from: (i)- what Stephen and Johnson had recently said in the media; (ii)- claims on the police website; (iii)- the recent "relaunch" of the 'Policing Pledge'.

I concluded my letter with "I hope you will change my perceptions by taking immediate action in relation to K&C police, and ensure the implementation of my rights: pursuing Andrew Ladsky and parties he instructed (*) for the offences they committed against me; ensuring that police records are amended to reflect my feedback, and my outstanding questions answered"

(*) “acted under his instructions” (Portner # 5.1)

Post sending the above letter, I took delivery of a 20.11.09 letter from Her Majesty's Steve McSorley, Head of 'Professional Standards', Kensington police said to be in acknowledgement of my 8 Oct 09 letter to him and to Mark Heath – (hence, 6 weeks later).

(As I had predicted), he states:

(NB: In reading McSorley's below 'reply', consider:

 

“For the sake of clarity, may I stress that I do not accept that there has been any “gross misconduct” by any of our officers in relation to the various crime reports in which you are named." (1)

Nor do I accept that TDC Dowling [2] made “malicious, scurrilous or libellous allegations” when he contacted your website host." (3)

With regard to the wording of the crime reports, I am satisfied that this represents an accurate account of what police were told at the time even if you do not agree with what was said by third parties." (4)

Consequently I will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports… unless enforcement notice is served by the Information Commissioner

(1)- Contrast that with the evidence in relation to the "crime reports": 2002, 2003 and 2007, (snapshots of reports under 'Breach Data Protection Act 1998') - and the police Code of Conduct in force at the time, and Home Office guidance.

(2)- See Section 3, above.

(3)- See Section 3, above.

(4)- (Also captured by Her Majesty's then Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, under para.15 of his 23.05.11 Defence against my 19 Apr 11 Claim). BUT, when it relates to ALL my communications, Her Majesty's police becomes suddenly totally blind and deaf: 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" ; QB # 4 ; Overview # 18(1).

As, by the time of my above 28 Nov 09 letter to Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, and Her Majesty's Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, I had not received the above letter, I sent them this 02.12.09 letter, headed

"Head of Kensington police approves of illegal conduct by some of its officers".

I highlighted McSorley's above comment “I am satisfied that this represents an accurate account of what police were told at the time…Consequently I… will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports…” and wrote: "What a very damning indictment!".

I followed this by quoting from the Data Protection Act 1998 that "the data controller has an overriding duty to process personal data fairly and lawfully", as well as comments by the Information Commissioner, and stated:

"It certainly IS “reasonably expected” of the police to investigate third party claims, including obtaining supporting evidence.

And it IS likewise “reasonably expected” of the police to do this BEFORE accusing an individual of having committed criminal actions"

(NB: Recording of false information to suit the police's interests - in the wider sense - is, in addition to my case, well documented - e.g. Media page)

Drawing from my 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 replies to the police's Public Access Office (above), in my 02.12.09 letter, I wrote "It follows from this that, as Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander for Kensington & Chelsea police, Mark Heath - APPROVES of his officers...".

The following are extracts from my 21 conclusions included in my 02.12.09 letter - I supported with examples:

•  "1. ...NOT contacting me – AT ANY POINT IN TIME – in relation to the 2007 so-called ‘complaint’ against me ‘by Andrew Ladsky’ – giving them free rein to communicate unlawful, fabricated lies against me to third parties, as well as record them on the police systems"

•  "2. ...defaming my name, character and reputation to a third party by making – totally unsupported - unlawful, libellous and malicious accusations against me to my website Host – with the aim of scaring my website Host into closing down my website, by..." (Section 3)

•  "3. ...making unlawful, racist, xenophobic comments by branding me “a Nazi”... and therefore approves of his officers breaching the police code that “MPS personnel must not use MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail…containing racist,…defamatory, offensive,…material”" (Section 3)

•  "4. ...recording on the police systems expressions of opinion about my mental health that are malicious, scurrilous and libellous. Concurrently, of approaching social services, in what I conclude, was part of an attempt at getting me sectioned – with the ultimate objective of gaining the closure of my website “She is obviously extremely paranoid”; “I believe she may have some mental issues so will be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of her”" (Section 3)

•  "5. ... “fully recordingAndrew Ladsky’s so-called ‘complaint’ against me in 2003 as “SUBSTANT/Offence of harassment” - BEFORE even contacting me" (Section 2)

•  "6. ...threatening me on the say-so of Andrew Ladsky e.g. 27 January 2003 letter - which was the first form of contact by K&C police following Ladsky’s so-called ‘complaint..." (Section 2)

•  "7. ...bullying me and intimidating me into dropping my 2002 complaint, as well as telling me “You won’t be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky” – with the effect of undermining my credibility, as it can be construed that I backed down on my complaint" (Section 1)

•  "8. ...repeatedly processing data that gives an inaccurate description of Andrew Ladsky’s role in Jefferson House – by: (1) describing him as “a neighbour”, instead of what he is ‘landlord for Jefferson House’ ...– with the aim of giving him scope to play the ‘poor innocent victim’, as well as give some weight to his trumped-up, malicious and slanderous accusations against me" (Sections # 1, # 2 , # 3). (NB: No surprise in my stating that I was right!)

•  "9. ...totally failing to challenge Ladsky on the veracity of his accusations against me, including failing to obtain supporting evidence - as it would discredit his complaints against me" (Sections # 2, # 3)

•  "10. ...totally failing to probe, and therefore failing to record the context of situations/ surrounding events - as it would discredit Ladsky’s complaints against me e.g..." (Sections # 2 , # 3)

•  "11. ...recording on the police systems – totally unsupported, unlawful, libellous and malicious accusations against me – many of which I only discovered as a result of making the 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request..." (Section # 2 , # 3)

•  "12. ...failing to record correspondence – because ‘inconvenient’ to Ladsky / his officers, and / or in order to disparage me / discredit me / lessen my complaint e.g..." (e.g. Sections # 2 ; # 3)

•  "13. ...recycling false accusations against me from Ladsky’s 2003 ‘complaint’ in order to add weight to his equally false accusations in ‘his’ 2007 ‘complaint’ (Section 3)

•  "14. ...failing to record the content of correspondence, as well as failing to act on it – because ‘inconvenient’ ..." (Section 1)

•  "15. ...lying; knowingly record false data; telling me / writing one thing to me, and capturing something totally different in the police database – with the aim of covering-up events / avoid capturing ‘inconvenient’ data / disparaging me and discrediting me e.g..." (Sections # 1 , # 2)

•  "16. ...repeatedly ignoring the evidence, and fabricate stories upon stories to avoid revealing it – with the aim of clearing Ladsky of involvement e.g...." (e.g. Section 1)

•  "17. ...failing to record the content of verbal communication from the police to me – because ‘inconvenient’ to his officers / Ladsky’s ‘complaint’ - e.g...." (Section 1)

•  "18. ...failing to acknowledge that at least four of my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House also complained to K&C police of suffering harassment from Andrew Ladsky – thereby lessening my complaint against him" (Sections # 1 , # 4).

•  "19. ... – who claimed to have ‘looked’ at my website - turning a blind eye to the ‘mountain’ of overwhelming ‘black on white’ evidence of breaches of numerous Acts, that are punishable by imprisonment, such as

•  "20. ...breaching my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 [by failing] - to ensure that data held about me is accurate, lawful and fair – and thereby approves of his officers holding data about me that causes me damage and distress;... [denying me the right] to ensure fair processing requirements have been complied with..."

•  "21. ...breaching my rights under the Human Rights Act 1998..." (NB: BUT: see the above intro)

"In a nutshell: Mark Heath approves of his officers providing assistance to a crook in shutting-up his victim - by whatever means".

To which can be added: and concurrently, Her Majesty's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, and his Head of 'Professional Standards', Steve McSorley - very clearly do not give a damn - among other - about the police's Code of Conduct and Standards of Professional Behaviour and Home Office Guidance; and Heath, does not give a damn either about the policing plans e.g. the MPA 2009-12 plan.

My 28.11.09 letter (above) and 02.12.09 letter (above) led to a 23.12.09 letter from Alan Johnson then led Home Office's Direct Communications Unit, stating:

In writing to Sir Paul Stephenson you have taken the right course of action.

It is the Chief Officer who is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Office.

The Home Officer and its Ministers are not able to act as an avenue of appeal, and have no power to influence or intervene in any investigations”

 

True that Her Majesty's Met Commissioner is "responsible for day to day operational management", BUT, pursuant to powers under various statutes, Her Majesty's Secretary of State:

  • (1)- "Prepares a National Policing Plan"; "setting objectives and performance targets"
  • (3)- Issues: (i)- Police Conduct Regulations; (ii)- Police Performance Regulations; (iii)- Police Complaints and Misconduct Regulations - that are submitted to, and endorsed by Parliament (see above)
  • (4)- Issues detailed Home Office Guidance to support the implementation of the above Regulations (see above)
  • (5)- As demonstrated by the below comment from the Deputy Chair of the IPCC to BBC's Panorama, "the Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the police's complaint system".

As unequivocally stated in the legislation, subordinate legislation (i.e. Regulations) and Home Office Guidance - these must be adhered to by police officers.

Hence, being the originator - and owner - of the above, Her Majesty's Home Secretary HAS a duty to ensure implementation of his/her objectives and Regulations through, in this instance Her Majesty's Met Commissioner,...

by ensuring that he, in turn, performs his duty by ensuring that officers under his control (i.e. local police stations comprised within the Metropolitan Police Service) (s.9A(1) of the Police Act 1996 (as inserted by s.314 of the Police Act 1999)) - implement the above.

Indeed, under s.9A(2) of the Act "(2) In discharging his functions...the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall have regard to the local policing plan issued by the Metropolitan Police Authority under section 8".

(Note also that under s.9B of the 1996 Act (as inserted by s.315 of the 1999 Act) "The Commissioner of the MPS is appointed on recommendation from the Home Secretary") (with final approval by HM The Queen).

It is abundantly clear from my above correspondence (detail: 2002, 2003 and 2007) that Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police behave like totally out-of control-medieval-fiefdoms that consider themselves to be above ALL legislation, including police-related - and have done so for years.

WHY do Her Majesty's Met Commissioner and Home Secretary turn a blind eye to the conduct (including post filing my Claim)? WHY do they, in effect, 'don't give a damn'?

The glaringly obvious answer: because, in this country, that claims to "ha[ve] a long and exemplary record on human rights" (!!!) - like ALL the others - they actually don't give a damn about the 'little people' or, as a visitor to my site wrote colloquially: "They don't give a crap"...

...a fact confirmed unequivocally by the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, in his reply to a taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15: "Fuck off and die!" (Source: The Guardian).

Further, I submit that their allegiance is very firmly with 'the Brotherhood' - of which the police is most definitely part.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(5.3)- The blind eye attitude and glaring endorsement of the unlawful conduct continued at the level of the police's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) that only saw fit to ask the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for "dispensation" from dealing with my complaint - giving as reason the totally irrelevant Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

In my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, my claims against the Met Commissioner's Directorate of Professional Standards are comprised under section 1.2, paras 105 to 112.

In reading the following, consider

  • "The Directorate of Professional Standards is responsible for improving professional standards, investigating allegations of unprofessional or unlawful behaviour by staff; and safeguarding the integrity of the organisation”...
  • ...“To combat information misuse and ensure that the integrity of police information is maintained and improved

(It apparently employs 400 staff)

 

I received a 03.12.09 letter from Her Majesty's Sir Paul Stephenson's Office that:

"[my] letters dated 28th November and 2nd December have “been forwarded to Inspector Campbell McKelvie, Directorate of Professional Standards Customer Service Team”

It was followed by a 08.12.09 letter from a Hema Patel, caseworker, Directorate of Professional Standards, Customer Service Team. What I viewed as a demonstration of contempt, was the fact that the letter was posted one week later, on 16th December. (Subsequent events demonstrated that I guessed right about the 'contempt' - because it is the standard British public sector response). It stated that it was:

"identifying the most appropriate person to deal with the issue(s) you have raised. We will then send you the contact details of the person dealing with your complaint”.

Enclosed was a one-pager, headed “What happens next?”, grandly described in the letter as “an information leaflet explaining the various processes”.

I took delivery of the letter on the 24th. As it asked for "a telephone number on which [I could] be contacted" (I noted the irony of 'the request'), I replied on 28.12.09.

One month later, I had not been contacted. I was beyond myself with anger, frustration and despair at the way I continued to be treated. (It was a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment regime). What on earth did I need to do to get my rights enforced?

I sent a 02.02.10 letter to, among others, HM's Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson (making it my 3rd letter to them). (I also addressed my letter to 2 other parties who had been playing a similar game: 'my' then MP Malcolm Rifkind, and Ann Abraham, then Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; (Doc library # 1.9 and # 1.10).

I headed my letter: “When am I due to be killed?”, referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat I had mentioned on pg 8, line 11 of my 28.11.09 letter to Stephenson and Johnson (”Enjoy your life. You don’t have long to live”) - about which the police did nothing. (NB: An implied death threat one was added on 14 Jun 14, by one of the local police thugs).

In this letter I again captured events, and asked: "What has happened since then? TOTAL SILENCE! I am reporting that (1)- I am the victim of crime – supporting my claim with a ‘mountain’ of ‘black on white’ evidence; (2)- my local police station has not only opted to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the evidence, it has blatantly sided with my attacker; (3) I have a death threat hanging over my head…

and THAT is your response Sir Stephenson?!? That is your interpretation of your department’s legal remit?

WHY? Are you counting on “my not having long to live”?"

On 4th Feb 10 - by 'amazing coincidence', day on which my above letter was delivered to the Met Commissioner - Her Majesty's Crispin Lee, Detective Inspector, Directorate of 'Professional Standards' posted a '21.01.10' letter to me.

(It was clear that the trigger to this letter was my 2 Feb 10 letter to Her Majesty's Met Commissioner - see, below, the police Application that provides additional support to my conclusion at the time). In this letter, he wrote:

"I am writing in connection with the complaint you made on 2 December 2009"

FALSE! The 02.12.12 letter is my letter to the Met Commissioner (on which they evidently chocked). As is glaringly obvious, my 'complaint' was contained in my 13.08.09 letter which, thanks to the 'we are above the law', power-corrupted, arrogant police, I had to repeat in my 20.09.09 letter

(Police Public Access Office; letters I refer to extensively, above, in the context of discussing the "crime reports": 2002, 2003 and 2007).

This is confirmed under para.21 of Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application (QB # 4(3)) to have my 19.04.11 Claim struck out: "The Claimant continued to complain about the alleged breaches of the DPA in her letter of 2 December 2009". Further, it is also confirmed in the 3rd paragraph of the letter:

In his '21.01.10' (= 4th Feb) letter to me, Her Majesty's Crispin Lee, Detective Inspector, Directorate of 'Professional Standards' - continues:

"I have reviewed (NB:!!!) the issues you raise and I have decided to apply to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to dispense with your complaint.

This is because I consider that you made your complaint more than 12 months after the alleged misconduct without good reason; that your complaint has been made only because you have been unable to obtain the result that you desire through the Public Access Office; and that given the time elapsed it is impracticable to investigate the issues about which you are complaining.

The IPCC will consider my request and inform you if they have granted a dispensation or whether we are required to deal with your complaint.

Until that decision is made no further action will be taken with your complaint. If you have any further enquiries, I must ask you to get directly in touch with the IPCC"

As I wrote under para.99 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. and para.98 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat.: "I could not believe my eyes: this central department, with responsibility for ‘professional standards’, was endorsing the conduct at local level".

What I did not know at the time (and only discovered through subsequent desk research) is that, in his letter, DI Crispin Lee was quoting from Reg.3(2)(a),(f) and (4)(b)(ii) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (hard copy).

(As evidenced by other cases reported in the media, this Regulation is the 'trump card' frequently used by the police, and its 'poodle' the IPCC, to avoid dealing with complaints...and, evidently, obligingly given to the police by the legislators).

(Re 'poodle' - I captured this on pg 2 of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC; see also, below, media reports)

Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 is totally irrelevant.

It cannot be called upon to interfere with a Data Subject's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

While not a lawyer, I am absolutely convinced that this is the case. See section # 5.5, below, my s.10 Notice to the police.

A Data Subject can - at any time - ask a data controller / processor to stop processing data that is a source of great distress because untrue and damaging.

(See below the police's 'Application for Dispensation' to the IPCC (also under QB # 5(1))).

 

Further, this right is enshrined under Directive 14 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, on which the DPA is based. It states:

a data subject must be granted the right to object at any time on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation to the processing of personal data relating to him

which is most definitely my case.

Asking him what his objective was in posting a '21.01.10' letter 2-weeks later, in my 18.02.10 reply to HM's DI Crispin Lee (above) – on which I copied the IPCC - I challenged him, point by point on the content of his letter. It included the “12 month deadline” by stating:

Where, in the Data Protection Act 1998, does it specify a time limit for a data subject to seek – and obtain – an end to the processing of data that is false, unlawful, misleading, scurrilous, libellous, biased, corrupted, incomplete in some very significant aspects – as well as obtain correction of the data to ensure that it is “fair, lawful and accurate”?

(I captured this under: (i)- para.100 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat.; (ii)- para.99 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Witness Statement).

I also asked DI Lee whether he was "expecting the IPCC" (1)- "to exempt Kensington & Chelsea police from compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998?" ; (2)- "to turn a blind eye to what I report?" .

The answer to these questions proved to be a resounding: YES! - because the police clearly dictated all the moves (see below, IPCC).

In this context, I wrote: "I hope that Nick Hardwick, [then] Chairman of the IPCC will be true to his words,...

....reported in The Independent article of 13 February 2010, “Root out corrupt officers, police told” :

We need a consistent and determined effort from the top, from the police leaders. There has to be a consistent message that this [corruption] is not acceptable”

“… if we do not deal with it now, then in the end, it will just get worse"

as what I am reporting is evidence of corruption by various individuals at Kensington & Chelsea police"

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(5.4)- Glaringly colluding and conspiring with the police, its 'poodle', the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) proceeded with - illegally - exempting the police from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998...

while, likewise, turning a blind eye to other forms of unlawful conduct, as well as breaches of the police Code of Conduct...thereby adding to the evidence reported in the media.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

In this section I also refer to documents issued following my filing a claim against the IPCC - for:

  • (i)- "wilfully and recklessly failing to perform its duties and use its powers under the Police Reform Act 2002"; and
  • (ii)- "doing this by using the totally irrelevant Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004".
  • In my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, my claims against the IPCC are under section 2 (paras140-152)

In reading this sub-section about events with the IPCC consider its statutory role and powers - defined under the Police Reform Act 2002:

  • to secure public confidence in the handling of complaints (1) made about the conduct (2) of persons serving with the police (3)” - s.10(1)(d) and s.10(2)(a);
  • to secure that arrangements are efficient and effective and manifest an appropriate degree of independence” - s.10(1)(c)
  • to secure the recording of matters from which it appears that there may have been conduct by such persons which constitutes or involves the commission of a criminal offence or behaviour justifying disciplinary proceedings" - s.10(2)(b)
  • (The above are listed under paras 2 & 3 of the IPCC’s 07.06.11 Application Wit.Stat. to have my 19.04.11 Claim struck out. I summarised them under para.143 of my Particulars of Claim).
  • Under s.10(4): “duty of the Commission to (a) exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred on it by the following provisions in the manner that it considers best calculated for the purpose of securing the proper carrying out of its functions…, and (b) to secure that arrangements exist which are conducive to, and facilitate, the reporting of misconduct by persons in relation to whose conduct the Commission has functions

(1)- Definition of a “complaint”: “…any complaint about the conduct of a person serving with the police which is made (whether in writing or otherwise) by- (a) a member of the public who claims to be the person in relation to whom the conduct took place” - s.12(1) and (a).
person complained against”: "in relation to a complaint, means the person whose conduct is the subject-matter of the complaint” - s.29(1)

(2)- Definition of “conduct” - see above.

(3)- Definition of “a person serving with the police” - “if- (a) he is a member of a police force; (b) he is an employee of a police authority who is under the direction and control of a chief officer…”: s.12(7).

s.22 of the Act gives the IPCC "power to issue guidance" and "those to whom it is issued have a duty to have regard to that guidance.

The IPCC has issued its 'Statutory Guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints':

  • pg12, Introduction- “…the IPCC’s statutory guidance is a key tool through which the IPCC is able to deliver on that duty...
  • pg122, # 464: "Under the Police Reform Act 2002 the IPCC has a duty...to ensure the accessibility of the complaints system"
  • pg75, # 253- The public expects an effective complaints system (2002 Act: s.10(1)(c)) to hold to account those justifiably complained against (and by implication their employing organisation) for the way in which they deal with the public”

While the IPCC is "not the servant or agent of the Crown" (s.9(5) of the 2002 Act) i.e. must operate independently of the police, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties, it must "report to the Secretary of State on the carrying out of its functions on a yearly basis" (s.11)

(It comes under the umbrella of the Home Office - see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us.html)

The IPCC is a 'public authority'. Consequently, under the Human Rights Act 1998, it is subject to s.6(2) "unlawful for it to act in a way that is incompatible with a European Convention Right" (BUT: see my Comments near the top of this page)

 

5.4(1)- The police's '22.01.10' Application for Dispensation' to the IPCC

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

(NB: The Application is also covered under QB # 5(1)). The alleged date of the Application is 22.01.10. Alleged as, to the question on the form asking: “Complainant advised of application (please attach copy of letter)”, the Yes” box has been ticked.

As discussed above: it is clearly not true. It further confirms my conclusion at the time that my 2 Feb 10 letter to Her Majesty's Met Commissioner had been the trigger to filing the Application (see, above, the '21 Jan 10' letter).

According to the Application:

In the '22 Jan 10' Application:

(1)- In 'justification' for using the "12 months deadline":

I was expected to have filed a Subject Access Request well before doing it on 28.05.09 [below # 5.5]because [I] was aware of the incidents at the time that they happened.

Indeed, in many instances [I] was aware of the issues at the time they happened.

The delay in making this complaint is therefore entirely due to [my] delaying [my] FoIA request".

This is something that Her Majesty's ‘Justice’ Mackay threw at my face during the 24 Oct 11 so-called ‘hearing’ (see my Comments to the pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order for my using inverted commas around hearing and Justice).

I replied that the implication of this claim was that every 6 months, or less, I was expected to contact the police to determine what it holds on me.

Aside from - the material facts - that:

  • (iii)- as demonstrated by events (2002, 2003 and 2007) the police only provides what it feels like providing - in total disregard of the rights of a data subject...

...I pointed out to Her Majesty's ‘Justice’ Mackay that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not specify a time limit for making a Subject Access Request.

Further, I also highlight Directive 14 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, on which the DPA is based (above, # 5.3)

Nonetheless, HM's Mackay still persisted in trying to validate the choice of this Regulation.

In the '22 Jan 10' Application:

(2)If the crime reports were to be altered at the complainant’s request this would set a new precedent for crime reporting and recording across the UK.

This complaint is therefore an abuse of process”.

Unbelievable! given that:

  • (i)- the police has denied me the right to defend myself against the accusations: in 2003 and in 2007;
  • (ii)- contrary to its classification of the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" - I have not committed criminal offences;
  • (iii) the police is processing data about me that are - undeniably - in breach of my rights (see detail: 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" )

Repulsively (considering the evidence in the case), its corruptbrother’, Her Majesty's Master Eyre, fully endorsed the police position by stating, under Reason 8 of ‘his’ pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (QB # 4(6)):

However, there is also this: the action against the First Defendant amounts to no more than a most obvious attempt to re-write history, and is completely devoid of merit”.

On pg 7 of my 07.08.11 reply to ‘his’ 02.08.11 ‘Draft Order’ (QB # 4(5)) I wrote: “Getting my rights enforced under the Data Protection Act 1998 cannot be described as an “obvious attempt to re-write history”. In fact, it is about removing fiction and adding facts in order to reflect history”.

(I repeated this under para.145 of my 17.10.11 Request re. my Appeal Application against the Order: QB # 4(7)). (see summaries: Events ; Breach of the law).

In the '22 Jan 10' Application:

(3) In 'justification' for claiming that my complaint was an "abuse of process"

“[I] resorted to complaining due to [my] being unable to secure amendments to the crime reports

Firstly, I have the absolute right under the Data Protection Act 1998 (s.10) to demand the end of processing of data about me that is causing me "distress and damage".

Secondly, consider this comment in the light of the IPCC's definition of "abuse of process".

The reality: Oh dear! Oh dear! I ‘dared’ to not walk away, viciously beaten up like a dangerous, demented animal by the police (who has malicious, ulterior motives for continuing to process the data against me) and instead ‘dared’ to stand-up for my rights.

In the '22 Jan 10' Application:

(4) "This is not a matter that should be addressed through the complaints system.

It is a matter for the Information Commissioner"

See, below, for my reply to this.

In the '22 Jan 10' Application:

(5) In ‘justification’ that “it is impracticable to investigate [my] complaint

That “[I] focus on numerous details within the crime reports that are of little or no practicable significance and relate to actions and or entries completed a long time ago.

It is impracticable and totally disproportionate to launch an investigation into such matters after such a long time.

Neither is any other process under the PRA practicable”.

Ditto about being unbelievable! - considering the evidence: 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" which, of course, they don't have a problem recycling when it suits; hold in reserve for using against me in court. And of course: must not change the key "neighbour" description, as it would totally undermine the content of the "crime reports".

That's what it's about: the current state of the "crime reports" suits the needs of 'the Brotherhood' - and those of the key beneficiary Andrew David Ladsky (above, Overall outcome on me)...

- in the process categorising me as 'the criminal' (2003: # 1 , # 4 ; 2007 ; QB # 4(6)) and him as 'the victim' - when, in fact, the reverse is the case.

Above, under Overall outcome on me, note the responses from Her Majesty's judiciaries .

See Section 2.2 of my Comments on the 29.07.11 IPCC Order (QB # 5(7)) for other content of the Application.

 

5.4(2)- The 22.02.10 letter 'from' the IPCC

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

With my 18.02.10 letter to the IPCC, I copied it on my 18.02.10 letter to HM's DI Crispin Lee (above). As can be seen from the last 2 pages: (i)- I posted the letter, 'Special Delivery', on 19th Feb; (ii)- the Royal Mail tracking system confirmed delivery on 22nd Feb.

As I had anticipated from Her Majesty's DI Crispin Lee's letter of '21.01.10' (i.e. 4 Feb 10) (above) (as well as from my very extensive first-hand experience of complaining, including to the police in 2002: Doc library from # 4.1 to # 4.4) - and in spite of the statutory definition of 'a complaint' - 'the IPCC' colluded and conspired with the police.

'The IPCC' in inverted commas because events (detailed below) lead me to submit most strongly that the actions were, in fact, dictated by and / or undertaken by the police itself.

In this context I highlight the fact that, under Sch.2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, para. 6 "Staff" - "the Commission" i.e. IPCC, is allowed to employ serving members of police forces on a secondment basis. (In my view, equivalent to putting the wolves in charge of the henhouse). (See also, below, media reports)

On the day the IPCC received my 18.02.10 letter, 'Matthew Johnson, caseworker' 'wrote' me a 22.02.10 letter that was very clearly a precursor to a decision that already been taken: approval of the 'dispensation' - as:

(i)- he referred to the "12 months deadline";

(ii)- talked of "events taking place in 2002,2003 and 2007"; and

(iii) of "the consequence of granting dispensation".

Obviously (and in light of my very extensive first-hand experience with the public sector), in order to support my demands, I needed to refer to the events that took place in 2002, 2003 and 2007...

- as well as provide supporting evidence: my 101 page bundle of 49 documents (above)).

But, 'of course', Her Majesty's Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police, their ACPO supporters and helpers, et.al. in 'the Brotherhood', as well as their 'Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew David Ladsky' did 'not like' my overwhelming 'black-on-white' evidence of criminality and corruption, preferring to bury it...

- and, in the process, take revenge for my 'daring' to not be intimidated by them (in spite! of my profile), including by their ongoing persecution and harassment tactics.

WHY didn't they destroy the "crime reports" as I asked - thereby preventing the follow-on events? See above for what I submit is the glaringly obvious answer.

Further, in 'his' (above) 22.02.10 letter, describing my complaint as as being dated "7th December" (*), in and hitlerian tone, 'Matthew Johnson' wrote:

"If you would like this investigation to continue, you must write to me within seven days of this letter providing good reasons for the delay in making your complaint"

"If you do provide a sound explanation for the delay I should make you aware that I am also considering the dispensation on the grounds of 'abuse of process' (that the complaints procedure does not exist in order for crime reports to be amended - there being another, more appropriate, remedy in the form of the Information Commissioner), and 'not reasonably practicable to investigate, (the length of time that has passed since the incidents occurred brings the practicality and value of any investigation into question)"

(*) As explained above, this is not correct. Like DI Crispin Lee, he was referring to my 02.12.09 letter to the Met Commissioner (which, on pg 1 of the IPCC's "02.03.10 Minutes of Application" is reported as having been delivered on 7th Dec. This is not true - as can be seen from the proof of delivery at the back of the letter: it was delivered on 3rd Dec)

As I wrote under para.101 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Witness Statement (and para.102 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat: "As far as I was concerned, not only had I already provided my reasons, I had kept repeating them in my documents to the police, and had endlessly highlighted my rights under the DPA, including repeating that I could exert my right – at any time (1).

I had even highlighted the latter in my 18th February 2011 letter on which I copied the IPCC. The IPCC would have known about my reasons, as well as my rights under the DPA as, under its stated policy [2], the police would have provided it with these documents in the context of its Application for Dispensation". To this I will add: and because the collusion was glaringly obvious.

(1) See section # 5.5, below, my s.10 Notice

(2) pg6, # 194- of the IPCC's Guidance states: "The application for dispensation must include: …copies of any other documents [in addition to the complaint] in the possession of the appropriate authority which is relevant to the complaint”.

Pre filing my 19 Apr 11 Claim, in this sub-section, I had listed all the documents the police would have had to supply to the IPCC in order to deal with my complaint.

Whether or not it was the trigger, in its 'tidying-up' Wit.Stat (QB # 5(6)) 'the IPCC' claimed to have "considered" and "taken into account my representations":

  • (i)- paras 5-11 of its 19.07.11 Wit.Stat., asserting that it was "supplied" - and "considered" - all the documents listed on pg 3 of the police's '22.01.10' (NB!!!) Application;

I submit that these claims and assertions make a very damning case against the IPCC.

Re. the "abuse of process" comment, in the above, 22 Feb 10 letter - note:

pg57, # 180- of the IPCC's Guidance: "A

An abuse of the complaints system will occur where there has been manipulation or misuse in order to initiate or progress a complaint which, in all circumstances of the particular case, should not have been made or should not be allowed to continue…...

Each case must however be judged on its merits and no overall rule for these circumstances should be applied" (NB: !!!)

Visitor to the site who is fair minded, reasonable and honest: considering all that is covered above on this page: does it look to you as though my complaint fits the above definition?

Under para.103 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat. I wrote: "I could not believe the content of the letter [above]. How could my exerting my rights under the DPA amount to “an abuse of process”?".

As can be seen from the envelop, the 22.02.10 letter (above) was posted on the 23rd. Hence, in writing “you must write to me within seven days of this letter”, 'Matthew Johnson' = the police, gave less than one week to reply. (Note that in 'his' "'02.03.10' Minutes of Application" (QB # 5(2)), Matthew Johnson claimed: "I have given her time to respond".

To ensure I would not be able to reply within the deadline, the police had the letter intercepted - as I wrote under para.104 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat. (It was posted 1st class on Tuesday 23rd; it was not in my PO Box on Sunday 28th). However, see, above, the reason I did not reply.

5.4(3)- The 02.03.10 letter 'from' the IPCC

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

As I wrote under para.105 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat.

"I had assessed the IPCC's 22.02.10 letter [above] as 'preparatory ground for the next instalment'. I proved to be right. Exactly one week later, it sent me a 02.03.10 letter that is a near carbon copy of the 22.02.10 letter". Indeed, 'Matthew Johnson', wrote:

"The IPCC has considered the application [above] and your letter of 18th February 2010.

Based on the information and evidence provided [1] we [2] have agreed that it would not be appropriate to investigate because you have not provided a good reason for the delay between the incident and the making of the complaint [3] and investigating your complaint now would likely cause an injustice" (4)

(1)- See above what it claimed to have "considered"

(2)- The true "we"? = the police

(3)- 'He' is quoting from Reg.3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (above) - which is totally irrelevant. See, below, my s.10 Notice.

(4)- Exerting my rights "would likely cause an injustice". Unbelievable! Who, since 2002, has - and continues - to "cause injustice" to whom? Answer: see above.

They are ALL absolutely rotten to the core.

'Matthew Johnson' continues in 'his' 02.03.10 letter (above):

"...The IPCC also considers that your complaint is an abuse of the complaints procedure because the misconduct complaints system does not exist in order for changes to be made to old crime reports"

Re. "Abuse of complaints procedure": see above the IPCC's Statutory Guidance definition.

Re. "old crime reports" - As I wrote under para.106 of my 19.07.11 IPCC Wit.Stat.: "as is obvious from the 17th October 2010 comment from the police officer: "We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court" (contained under paragraph 125c of the Particulars of Claim) – there is no such thing as “old crime reports”.

'Matthew Johnson' continues in 'his' 2 Mar 10 letter:

"An application to the Information Commissioner might be (NB: "might be" = Warning bell!) a more appropriate way to address this issue,..."

"...if there is any way to address it" (NB: = another warning bell)

This was a repeat of McSorley's 'reply' of 20 Sep 09.

Translation: We sure as hell are going to have fun with you Bitch! That's the mantra under their criminal psychological harassment regime: let's have fun; put the complainants back on the treadmill; wear the bastards down; how 'dare' they complain against our tribe? (many examples of this in my case)

(Or, standard option 2: go into 'silent mode' when there is not another treadmill option in the 'toolkit' / when cornered).

(Note that, at the Pre-action stage, the police still attempted to push me towards the Information Commissioner: its 01.04.11 letter, to which I replied, on 04.04.11, asking where this was stated in the Data Protection Act 1998. It did not provide a reply in its 07.04.11 letter).

Why should 'I' go "to the Information Commissioner" to get the police to comply with the requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998? (extracts)

  • (1)- The Act does not impose a requirement on a data subject to go through the Information Commissioner - see above.
  • (2)- The police has a duty to comply with legal requirements.
  • (6)- And ultimately: the responsibility for ensuring that these individuals and departments perform their statutory duties rests with the Home Secretary.

That's what 'I', the taxpayer, pay them ALL to do. Their failure to do their job amounts to, among others, theft of my taxpayer money.

Then, in 'his' 2 Mar 10 letter, 'Matthew Johnson' states the decision that had clearly been agreed from the start:

"As a result, we [1] have agreed to grant a dispensation" (2)

"This means the police do not have to investigate this matter"

(1)- That "'we" again! = the police.

(2)- Because, 'of course', as 'Matthew Johnson' wrote in 'his' "'02.03.10' Minutes of Application": "I consider this a very strong case for dispensation"

= Same as ALL the rest - in the case of my numerous other complaints: absolutely rotten to the core monsters.

'The IPCC' sent a 02.03.10 letter to the police granting it "dispensation". It states:

The complainant has not responded or provided good enough reasons for us to refuse your application”.

If I “did not respond”, which, for the reasons detailed above, I did not: how could my ‘non-response’ be assessed as “not providing good enough reasons”?

Hence, 'the IPCC' - illegally - granted Her Majesty's Metropolitan Police Service "dispensation" from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998...

...by using Reg.3 of The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 - which is totally irrelevant...

...as it cannot be called upon to interfere with a Data Subject's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998.

I repeat the rest of my comments under # 5.3, above.

(This corrupt, don't give a damn about the law conduct 'by' the IPCC is to be expected: see below, media reports)

(My comments on the 29.07.11 Order (see below) include other points)

As I wrote under para.109 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., in spite of my battling solidly for 6 months, I had made no progress whatsoever. I felt totally abandoned and distraught. I also felt humiliated and debased from the treatment I had been subjected to by State departments that have a duty to help me - a taxpayer. At the same time, I also felt a lot of anger and frustration.

In addition to my - absolute rights - under the Data Protection Act 1998 (see # 5.5, below) - consider the above letters of 22 Feb 10 and 2 Mar 10 'from' the IPCC - in the context of:

(See also my analysis under QB # 5(3) in relation to the IPCC's Guidance and its powers)

 

pg24, # 29- “The member of the public must claim to have been adversely affected by the conduct" (from s.12(3) and (4) of the Police Reform Act 2002) (as amended)

If you are a fair minded, reasonable, honest person, I think you will agree that I more than amply meet this requirement.

 

pg173, B7Each complaint, conduct…should be assessed in light of its facts and the law that applies to it

Has the IPCC done that? The answer to that is a resounding: NO!

 

pg16, # 8- “All complaints concerning the police should be properly and professionally handled”

pg75, # 253- “The public expects an effective complaints system to hold to account those justifiably complained against (and by implication their employing organisation) for the way in which they deal with the public”

Has the IPCC done that? Ditto: a resounding: NO!

 

pg18, # 17- Conduct means actions and decisions or omissions to act or decide. May occur through breach of published code or policy; Human Rights Act 1998”.

(NB: To which I add: and breach of other statutes - outlined e.g. in my 02.12.09 letter to the Met Commissioner and Home Secretary - # 5.2, above).

p83, # 298- “An investigation into a conduct matter must focus on establishing whether there is a case to answer in respect of misconduct or gross misconduct

pg28, # 44- Definition of a recordable conduct matter– involves a criminal offence or behaviour liable to result in disciplinary sanction that was aggravated by discriminatory behaviour

"police officers must report any behaviour that departs from the Standards of Professional Behaviour"

pg113, # 433 (and A6, pg151)- “A complaint should be upheld where the findings show that the service provided by or through the conduct of those serving with the police did not reach the standard a reasonable person could expect.

pg114, # 434 (and A6, pg151)- “In deciding what standard of service...., the investigator, IPCC and appropriate authority should apply an objective standard of a reasonable person in possession of the available facts.

They should have regard to the Standards of Professional Behaviour, any agreed service standards and any national guidance that applies to the matter”

pg120, #454– “The Home Office has issued detailed guidance on dealing with misconduct and unsatisfactory performance by police officers” (see above)

Annex A, pg164- ‘Definitions of allegation categories and link to Standards of Professional Behaviour (Bear in mind also the Home Office Guidance) (which the IPCC highlights pg120, #454)

 

Allegation

Definition

Standard/s of Professional Behaviour

F

Discriminatory behaviour

“…Discriminatory behaviour should be thought of in terms of treating people differently without justification through prejudice or unfair treatment of one person…Discrimination may be committed on the grounds of race…gender…” (Article 14 of the European Convention)

(NB: As I also pointed out on 16 Oct 10 and 17 Oct 10; see also section 6, below)

B75, pg 186- "The IPCC guidance mirrors the definition set out in the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Hate Crime Manual for the recording of a hate incident or crime. Any incident...perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate”

(NB: See above, my profile; evidently, KCN police is also exempt from compliance - see e.g. 2007)

Equality and diversity

G

Irregularity in relation to evidence /perjury

“This includes…allegations of falsehood” (NB: The 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" are littered with "falsehoods")

Honesty and integrity

H

Corruption or malpractice

“…Corruption is the abuse of a role or position held, for personal gain or gain for others…” (NB: my overall assessment of KCN police)

#211, pg65- “any attempt to pervert the course of justice; corrupt controller, handler or information relationships; attempts or conspiracies to do any of the above

(NB: See above correspondence with e.g. (1)- the police Public Access Office; (2)- Chief Superintendent Mark Heath and Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards'; (3)- my conclusions to the Met Commissioner. Yet again: evidently not perceived to apply to KCN police)

#213, pg65- “referrals in relation to serious corruption should be made in line with the referral of corruption investigations protocol between the IPCC and ACPO

(NB: Another requirement which is evidently not perceived to apply to KCN police... due to an implicit ‘Memorandum of Understanding’??)

#203, pg63- "Serious corruption (*) is criminal offence or behaviour which is liable to lead to a disciplinary sanction and which, in either case, is aggravated by discriminatory behaviour") (NB: Ditto)

(*) Reg 2(a)(iii) and 2(a)(iv) respectively of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004

Honesty and integrity

Q

Lack of fairness and impartiality

“An example of this would be a failure to treat all parties equally where there are allegations and counter-allegations…”

(NB: e.g. as I also pointed out on 16 Oct 10 and 17 Oct 10 to K&C police; see also section # 6, below)

Equality and diversity

S

Other neglect or failure in duty

“This includes allegations with regard to a lack of conscientiousness and diligence concerning the performance of duties. This may include failure to record or investigate matters…” (NB: I repeat my above references, under 'corruption')

Duties and responsibilities; Orders and instructions

T

Other irregularity in procedure

“…misleading a member of the public in order to achieve a course of action” (NB: as per above)

Orders and instructions; Duties and responsibilities

X

Improper access and /or disclosure of information

“This concerns allegations relating to improper disclosure or use of information held for police purposes. This includes misuse of police computer systems..."

(NB: (1)- the 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" ; (2)- the 2007 emails from the police.

To this I add e.g. passing CCTV data about me to the Ladsky mafia e.g. Snapshots - Persecution # 2

Orders and instructions; Confidentiality

Furthermore, in the light of the above, and of the decision 'by' the IPCC, note also:

pg65, #164- "Recordable conduct matters cannot be considered for dispensation

p28, #44-"A recordable conduct matter involves a criminal offence or behaviour liable to result in disciplinary sanction that was aggravated by discriminatory behaviour” (NB: re. 'discrimination', see above ; re. 'disciplinary sanction' see, below, media reports)

p28, #46- also states that “…recordable conduct matter can come through the expectation that officers and police staff subject to their Standards of Professional Behaviour will report and challenge improper behaviour

(NB: Consider the evidence Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Steve McSorley Professional Standards, the Met Commissioner, Home Secretary, Directorate of Professional Standards - and by extension the IPCC - were provided with).

On pg 12 of its Guidance, the IPCC states that "[its] statutory guidance is a key tool through which the IPCC is able to deliver on that duty...

Fair minded, reasonable, honest visitor to the site: considering the above: does it look to you as though the IPCC took its own Guidance into consideration in the handling of my complaint?

That's why I filed the 19.04.11 Claim against the IPCC (QB # 5).

Outcome?

It filed a 07.06.11 Application to have my claims struck out, giving as reason, under para.14 of its supporting Wit.Stat that "[I] did not challenge the decision to grant dispensation by way of judicial review", and under para.22, that "the three month time limit expired in June 2010 and [I am] seeking to circumvent that time limit by making this claim" (QB # 5(5)).

Unbelievable! See summary of events for what happened.

(My comments to the 29.07.11 Order include more detail of events with the IPCC following filing my Claim)

(NB: Note also what the IPCC states on pg 48, #131 of its Guidance:

“There is no cut-off for recording a conduct matter arising from a civil claim i.e. where the events took place some years previously”

 

pg30, #52- “From research, barriers to people making complaints: not worth making a complaint because they believed there would be little potential for a positive outcome” (1)

p75, #255- "The IPCC believes that making the police complaints system as open and transparent as possible will encourage the public to have confidence that complaints will be handled fairly and misconduct or unsatisfactory performance dealt with effectively” (2)

(1)- YEP! Proven - yet again! Hence: No change relative to the IPCC's pre-1 April 2004 predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority (above)

(2)- Contrast that with the way 'the IPCC' 'dealt' with my complaint (22 Feb 10 and 2 Mar 10 letters - as well as other events detailed in my Comments to the 29.07.11 IPCC Order.

See also, below: media reports ; point # 9.2 , and Media page - for other evidence against the police, as well as IPCC.

I also repeat my above notes.

In the light of my above experience with the IPCC: so much also for the claims made by the then IPCC Chair, Nick Harding about "rooting out corrupt police officers" (above)

 

There clearly has been no change at the IPCC since 2008 - following the departure of 100+ lawyers, as reported in the Guardian, 25 Feb 08: "Crisis at police watchdog as lawyers resign" -

"More than 100 quit over claims of delay and poor decisions by IPCC...In a letter to Nick Hardwick, the IPCC's chairman, the lawyers' leaders expressed "increasing dismay and disillusionment" at what they described as "the consistently poor quality of decision-making at all levels of the IPCC"

... A failure to provide effective oversight for the work of the police investigators who still handle most complaints;

a pattern of favouritism towards the police with some complaints being rejected in spite of apparently powerful evidence in their support"

..with few exceptions, "mediocrity appears to flourish unchecked, unmarked and, in many instances, unacknowledged" (*)

In the Guardian's next article, "In their resignation letter, the lawyers wrote: "The concern for us is that we risk doing a disservice to the complaints system, complainants and our members if we allowed ourselves to remain complicit in a process that is clearly not working".

(*) One year later, in its 31.03.09 report to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the IPCC wrote: "The IPCC has no formal quality framework in place" (Note that the IPCC was set-up, 5 years previously, in April 2004 - as stated on pg 3 of the report)

The 'IPCC decision' in my case is typical of its the decisions (e.g. Mr De menezes) - an assertion Her Majesty's Home Secretary cannot challenge - as, at least up to 2010 - no statistics were compiled on the work "of the 400 strong IPCC".

This is captured by Hansard, for matters raised in Parliament, on 10 Dec 09 - Column 565W. The Home Office said that it was "considering it" with other parties.

Note that, 9 months previously, in Mar 09, Parliament's Public Accounts Committee "criticised the IPCC for being unable to show if it is working effectively" (point # 9.2, below)

How extremely 'convenient' for the police that no statistics are compiled! Is this on the order of its Masonic lodge?

Guardian, 25 Feb 08 - "The IPCC: a catalogue of delays, rejections and basic failures"

"A Guardian review of dozens of case histories found... failing to order proper inquiries; accepting police evidence without challenge...

There have been problems, too, with the IPCC's own investigators, many of whom are former police officers and Customs officers or serving officers on secondment"

 

Daily Mail article, 5 Oct 08 - "Retrain the watchdog"

- "The police killing of barrister Mark Saunders continues to raise disturbing questions....The police watchdog seems to devote an increasing amount of its time to obstructing legitimate inquiries and slapping whitewash over controversy"

 

BBC Panorama programme, 19 Jan 10 - "How well does the IPCC police the police?"

"Six years after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was founded, there are still concerns about the effectiveness and independence of policing the police"

"A former Commissioner: Why should the public have confidence in a complaints system when they know that the odds are hugely stacked against having their complaint upheld and are even more stacked against them in terms of the prospect of a police officer who has done something wrong being held to account?"

 

BBC Panorama, 31 Oct 11 - “Cops behaving badly

A BBC Panorama investigation found that officers accused of misconduct were being allowed to quietly resign rather than face the disciplinary process… Responses... from 47 of the UK’s 53 police forces found that between 2008 and 2010: there were 1,915 findings of guilt for misconduct; of these, 382 were told to resign.

There were a further 489 cases in which the officers were told to either resign or retire rather than face misconduct proceedings (1)

Asked: “How do you think the public thinks of the idea that so many officers chose to do this?”, Deborah Glass, Deputy Chair of the IPCC, replied: “I imagine they would regard it as the officers getting away with it”. To being asked: “Is that a fair perception?”, she replied: “In some cases it may well be”.

She also stated: “There is no overall body that has responsibility for the police misconduct system other than the Home Office, I dare say [2]I think it makes consistency a problem, guidance can be a problem and I think it does have an impact on public confidence””.

(1)- Note that, having 'retired' to avoid disciplinary action, some are then re-employed: Media: Simon Harwood.

Media exposure led Theresa May, then Home Secretary, in 2013, to assert that "officers would no longer be able to avoid disciplinary action by resigning or retiring" = another typical sham comment...

- as demonstrated by more recent examples: (1)- Sir Norman Bettison - re. Hillsborough: 1st ; 2nd article ; (2)- DI Khalid Kiyani - re. Mr Tarik Jahan ; (3)- 3 officers re Mr Leonard McCourt.

(2)- Contrast! and following filing my Claim: QB # 5 - IPCC ; the Home Secretary's failure to act in the face of irrebutable evidence.

BBC Panorama’s website, article at 19 Jan 11:

In 2010, out of more than 31,000 complaints against the police, the IPCC investigated just 88. The remainder was investigated by the police force against whom the complaint was made

It was, in effect, confirmed by Deborah Glass, in the above 31 Oct 11 Panorama programme, who said: “Most cases are investigated by the police”.

= Same as for ALL the other so-called 'regulators' I have approached: they are dictated to by those they are meant to regulate.

BBC Panorama, 19 Nov 12 - "IPCC advised to take soft tone with police":

"Deborah Glass cautioned one of the senior investigators against treating police as possible suspects in investigating a man's death during an arrest"

"A lawyer for the man's family said the IPCC placed good relations with police ahead of its public duty to investigate potentially criminal police failings"

NOTE the comments from "Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee which is conducting the inquiry into the IPCC, said of the survey findings: At the moment (the IPCC) does not appear to be fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities that Parliament place on it" (*)

(NB: The IPCC is controlled BY the police).

BBC Panorama, 19 Nov 12 - "Who's Watching the Detectives?":

"As the IPCC is handed the investigation into Hillsborough, the biggest policing scandal in UK history, reporter Mark Daly investigates whether the body that polices the police is fit for purpose."

(*) = Like him! See his subsequent report. To this I add his failure to take action following being copied on my 25.11.14 letter to Theresa May et.al.: HO # 3.1(4)).

Of course, the IPCC continues with its poodle role:

Private Eye, issue 1373, 22 Aug - 4 Sep 14, pg 34 - "Police & the Disabled - Manchester cops it"

4 disability-related cases in 3 years against Greater Manchester Police:

(1) - "Death of Billy Salton,...known to have epilepsy, who died suffering three seizures while in custody for more than 30 hours. In 2012, the IPCC found a string of failures...

Nevertheless [its verdict] was "insufficient evidence to show that any individual officer or member of police staff had breached their professional standards...[failings] did not contribute to his death."

(2) - "David Askew, who had learning difficulties, collapsed and died in March 2010 soon after police received reports that youths had again been harassing him outside his home.

The IPCC found that, between 2004 and 2010, Mr Askew and his family had reported 88 incidents of harassment and hostility, threats and abuse."

"The IPCC heavily criticised Greater Manchester Police (GMP) for failing to treat his “years of torment” as disability hate crime."

(Another identical case taking place at the same time, was that of Mrs Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, who made "33 desperate calls" and, eventually, in Nov 09, committed suicide.

Considering what happened to Mr Askew subsequently: so much for the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson's highly trumpeted 'Policing Pledge' launched in Nov 09 - not to mention his assertions at the time!)

(3) - "The IPCC criticised GMP for ignoring 2 phone calls raising serious concerns about the health of a disabled man, who was later found dead."

(4) - "The IPCC criticised GMP for firing a 50,000-volt Taser at a man who had just had an epileptic seizure."

"Asked by the Eye whether is was concerned about four disability-related cases against the same force in three years, the IPCC declined to comment."

Back to list

 

(5.5)- More than ever determined to clear my name of the false, malicious and highly vicious accusations against me and opinions of me in the “crime reports”, having failed to get the remedy I rightly deserved from the IPCC,...

I submitted a 02.06.10 DPA s.10 Notice, and supporting document, to Chief Superintendent Mark Heath – in the belief that it offered the solution to my problem. In breach of statutory requirements: he ignored it.

Subsequent to filing my 19.04.11 Claim against Her Majesty's Met Commissioner, he described my Notice as "Not valid". He also continued to deny breaching any of my rights - including under the European Convention.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

Not surprisingly, in the light of the content of the so-called "crime reports" (brief summary), they are a source of extreme distress and anguish to me (*).

(*) Under paras 50 and 60 of my 19.07.11 MPS Witness Statement, and para 104 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, I reported that, in 2007, I was very distressed by the false, defamatory, malicious, vicious accusations against me (police's emails to my website),...

and the fact that I was denied the right to defend myself against them - that I saw my doctor who prescribed me tranquilisers and anti-depressants. (At the time, I had not seen the "crime reports").

As I wrote under paras 14, 80, 79, 80, 82 and 86 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and para.103 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, this is made worse by the following:

  • in addition to the "50,000 police" who have access to the data (see Media page - 20 Mar 13 article) - as demonstrated by my experience on 16 Oct 10 - the police also makes its data available to a large number of public sector parties e.g. law enforcement agencies, courts, central and local government, etc; hence: hundreds of 000s of people;
  • it has demonstrated by its recycling, in 2007, of the false accusation against me in the 2003 "crime report", that it disregards the classification of its reports - thereby adding the very substantial risk of, yet, additional contraventions of my rights;

Under para.110 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat., I wrote, determined to clear my name, I embarked on extensive desk research with the objective of finding a means of circumventing the repeated refusals to meet my demands.

I bought a book on the Data Protection Act 1998. From this, realised that I could submit a Notice under Section 10:

Section 10(1)(3)- (1) “…an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller…to ceaseprocessing…any personal data... on the ground that, for specified reasons-

(a) the processing of those data…is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him…, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted".

This is an absolute right I have under the Act in relation to the data held against me by Her Majesty's police that is, to say the least, but using the term of the Act under s.70(2) "inaccurate: incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact".

Further, I also highlight my rights, enshrined in Directive 14 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, on which the DPA is based (above, # 5.3)

As the DPA imposes a requirement on a data controller to respond within 21 days

Section 10(3)- "Within 21 days of receiving the notice, the data controller must state whether he has complied or intends to comply (s.10(3)(a)), or state his reasons for not complying with the request or parts of it (s.10(3)(b))".

I concluded that doing this would be the solution to my problem.

Costing me many weeks of work (and costs) (Doc library # 4.12), I sent Her Majesty's Chief Superintendent Mark Heath a 02.06.10 Notice, supported by a 66-page document.

It was all in vain - as he did not even acknowledge my correspondence - thereby committing a further breach of the Act - as failure to do so amounts to a breach of the Sixth Principle as detailed under para.8(b) of Sch.1 of the Act.

(I discussed the failure to comply with my s.10 Notice under paras 101, 102 and 107 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request - quoting case law under the latter paragraph)

Added to the above, the other sources of extreme distress and anguish are:

(1)- The fact that Her Majesty's police is processing, no doubt, far more damaging data against me, to which it is unlawfully denying me access.

  • In support of my position, I cite the glaringly obvious lies by Her Majesty's Met Commissioner and his staff that the police had "released data to me to the extent required and/or permitted under s.7(4) DPA"
  • - v. the fact that it subsequently released a substantial amount of the previously redacted text in its July 11 versions of the "crime reports" - as discussed above under # 2 (6)(2)(10).
  • To this, I add the reaction of one of its officers, on 16 Oct 10.

(2)- The fact that, as I reported under paras 13 and 14 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat, and paras 5, 73 and 105 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request (detailed above, under # 3 KP(3)(2)(10))...

- in breach of my rights (s.7(1)(a)(iii) of the DPA), Her Majesty's police has not provided me with the contact detail of 3rd parties to whom it has supplied data about me e.g. to 'social services' - which is, no doubt, in the same vein - discussed above, under # 3 KP(3)(2)(10).

It left me with only one option: issuing proceedings - as I had warned I would do in e.g. (i)- 20.09.09 letter to Heath (above) ; (ii)- 28.11.09 letter to the Met Commissioner and Home Secretary (above).

Clearly, I was not believed, and my determination and ability to do it were evidently underestimated. I am sure they believed that, if I were to do it, I would 'no doubt' be seeking legal help - which would then provide 'an opportunity' to prevent me from getting it (confirmed on e.g. 11 Aug 11), or messing me around by conspiring with my 'advisers' e.g. Piper Smith Watton and Stan Gallagher batting for Ladsky in 2003.

As, one month after my 17.03.11 Pre-action letter (QB # 2), they still did not make any attempt at resolving the situation (in fact, they had been trying to keep me on 'the treadmill') : I filed my 19.04.11 Claim (QB # 3)

The absolutely outrageous 'reasons' Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's gave in his '23.05.11' Defence (QB # 4(2)) for not responding to my s.10 Notice. (I reported them under para.102 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request)

  • Para.16 (and 34): “This purported notice was not valid for the purposes of s.10 DPA, because to whatever extent the MPS’ processing of the Claimant’s personal data caused her damage or distress, that damage or distress was not unwarranted (s.10(1)(b) DPA) [1], and because conditions 1 [given consent] and 3 [compliance with legal obligation] from Sch.2 were met (s.10(2)(1) DPA)(2)
  • Para.34: “The MPS’ failure to acknowledge the Claimant’s purported s.10 notice was not “wilful or reckless”, but in accordance with the law (3)
  • Para.34(i): “It is admitted that the MPS has not responded to all questions in writing [4] by Claimant since her subject access request of 29 May 2009. It was not required under DPA or by any other law to answer these questions”.

(1)- Contrast that with the contents of the "crime reports" - and my comments on the entries: 2002, 2003 and 2007 (snapshots)

(2)- See above for my replies: 2003 and 2007 "crime reports"

(3)- "wilful or reckless" - from para.76a of my 19.04.11 Claim

(4)- As I wrote under para.104 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, the police did not respond to any of my questions

(Further) - As to violating my rights under the European Convention - for which I identified Articles # 3, # 6, # 8 and # 14 (under paras 76 and 77 of my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim) - it resulted in the same denial by the Met Commissioner in his 23.05.11 Defence.

The denials are under paras 34 & 35. In my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, having listed them under para.110; I replied to them under paras 110-115.

However, in light of the fact that the British Human Rights Act is a sham (see my comments at the top of the page) - I only highlight the following as a further demonstration of the extremely sick of the Met Commissioner:

Para.35 - "[I] must prove that [I] suffered the humiliation, degradation, injury to feelings, additional anxiety, distress and costs referred to in paras 77 and 80.

Even if [my] ECHR rights have been breached, no award of damages should be made in the circumstances.

It is denied that damages would be required to afford [me] just satisfaction.

Further, for the reasons set out above, [I] am not entitled to any of the declarations [I] seek under para.81

I repeat my above Comments under Overall outcome on me about the European Court of Human Rights - unbelievably - rejecting my legitimate 26.01.12 Application.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(6)- Continuing with its criminal psychological harassment, in October 2010, Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police refused to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment - in spite of my making 7 attempts.

Post filing my 19.04.11 Claim, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner lied about the excuses the police gave me for not pursuing my complaints. I was able to prove it as I had secretly recorded one of the conversations.

It made it the 4th time that the police failed to - correctly - record offences of harassment committed against me by Andrew Ladsky / at his instigation.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

As detailed in My Diary 27 July 10, in Oct 10, I made a total of 7 visits in vain attempts to get Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police to investigate my 2 well-documented complaints of harassment against 2 men:

In my 19.04.11 Particulars of Claim, my claims are contained under section 1.3, paras 113-136. In my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I discussed the events under paras 113-142.

Under para 40 of his '25.05.11' Defence (QB # 4(2)), Her Majesty's Met Commissioner denied what I reported as the police having told me for refusing to investigate my complaint against the 20 and 27 Jul 10 man i.e. the excuses that:

  • (i)- "[I] followed the man";
  • (ii)- "[I did] not have evidence of racial harassment".

Further, the police also denied having told me that, instead of filing a crime report, it would "file an intelligence report".

I was able to provide undeniable proof of the lies - as I had secretly recorded the 16 Oct 10 conversation with Her Majesty's PC Belky Giles. I did this with my 14.06.11 Reply to parts of the Defence, discussing it under paras 10-13, and by supplying, to each of the 3 Defendants, as well as the court, a CD-ROM with a recording of the conversation...

...as well as a transcript. Further, I also supplied a copy of the notes given to me by PC Giles, stating the number of the 'Intelligence Report' as 'BSRT00327225', she said to have filed.

(NO: unlike Her Majesty's Met Commissioner (Defence, Application), the IPCC (Defence, Application) and the racketeering Ladsky mafia - I DO NOT consider myself at liberty to lie under statements of truth i.e. commit contempt of court (CPR Rule 32.14).

This is a point I made under para.10 of my 14.06.11 Reply). (QB # 4.2(3))

Under para.125b of my Particulars of Claim, I wrote that, on 17 Oct 10, Her Majesty's Sergeant Avison told me: "We have to capture everything that is reported, but not unlawful information against people; that's a breach of the Data Protection Act" (I viewed this as a spit on the face).

Under para.40 of his '23.05.11' Defence, HM's Met Commissioner denied it, stating:

"Sgt Avison explained to the Claimant that the MPS was not required to record all information provided by the Claimant concerning Mr Ladsky" (*)

Contrast that with what he stated under para.6 of his 30.06.11 Application: “All the details [supplied] must be recorded…”.

(*) By contrast, Her Majesty's police feels 'obligated' to record all the lies 'Dear Mr Ladsky' tells it about me: 2003 and 2007 so-called "crime reports" - in the process clearly failing to implement its "open mind" policy.

Under para.59 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. I wrote: "If my written evidence of being harassed, with photographs in support, and endorsed with a Statement of Truth was insufficient, why did the police accept Ladsky's accusations against me and opinions of me in the 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" without any evidence in support – and then act on them?"

I also highlight that, under para.125(d) of my 19.04.11 Claim, I reported my telling HM's Sergeant Avison that "Ladsky is a fraudster" - and he replied: "It's a civil matter"...

to which my response was “NO, under the Fraud Act 2006, fraud is a criminal offence. So, it IS a matter FOR the police” (My Diary 17 Oct 10).

Obviously, criminal offences are very clearly a matter for the police - as again confirmed e.g. in Parliament, on 11 Jan 12, by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally), to a question from Baroness Hooper (Hansard, at Column WA95):

"A fraud is a criminal offence, it may also be appropriate for the consumer to report allegations of such activity to the police who, if they consider that there is a case to answer following investigation, may refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service"

Of course, in his '23.05.11' Defence (QB # 4(2)), Her Majesty's et Commissioner, also lied / arrogantly dismissed my claim in relation to related matters: paras 41, 42 and 34.

I also highlight, under para.41 of his '23.05.11' Defence, Her Majesty's Met Commissioner's comment as to 'what I should I have done if I was dissatisfied' - extract above, under Overall outcome on me, including my reply.

Of note - Throughout, the police's focus was on the 20 & 27 Jul 10 man: (1)- as I reported under para.133 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. in relation my Oct 10 visits to the police stations, stating:

"It reinforced my belief that the former had been put up to it by Ladsky, and that the latter was a police informant” (see snapshots under Persecution # 2 ; 'surveillance Britain');

(2)- the exclusive focus on the former continued in the Met Commissioner's '23.05.11' Defence and 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat (QB # 4(3)).

Equally consistent with the glaringly obvious collusion that took place between Her Majesty's police and Her Majesty's Master Eyre, the only thing 'Master Eyre' wrote in 'his' pack of lies 09.08.11 MPS Order (QB # 4(6)) regarding my claims in relation of my Oct 10 complaints is under Reason 3(4): "The police recorded the matter but took no action".

As I wrote under para.79(1) of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request, this statement "falsely infers that my 2 complaints were unsubstantiated / unactionable" and that "any fair minded, reasonable, honest individual would agree with me that I provided ample evidence to ‘the police’ to act"

In the rest of para.79, I highlighted the fact that Master was ignoring the evidence I had supplied with my 14.06.11 Reply (above) - including the fact that PC Giles had challenged me on my saying that "[I] feared for my safety".

(This is confirmed under para.19 of the Met Commissioner's 30.06.11 Application Wit.Stat.: "PC Giles did not accept the Claimant's account that she had feared for her safety").

As I wrote under para.79 of my 17.10.11 Appeal Request (and para.122 of my 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat): "How would PC Giles know how I felt?"

Under para 80 of my 17.10.11 Request, I highlighted the fact that Master Eyre had ignored the evidence I supplied in my Particulars of Claim and 19.07.11 MPS Wit.Stat. And, under paras 81-86 referred to the Met Commissioner's defences; the violation of my rights under the Convention, and cited case law on 'discrimination'.

I repeat my above Comments under Overall outcome on me, about the European Court of Human Rights - unbelievably - rejecting my legitimate 26.01.12 Application.

I also repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(7)- In the light of my experience with the police in 2002 and 2003, when, in 2005, the Law Society and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors told me that I should "report to the police my alleged criminal offences" by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), and Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - respectively - I saw no point doing this.

My subsequent experience with Her Majesty's police in 2007, and in Oct 10, added to my seeing the 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the police and the Law Society - proved my assessment to be correct.

(See Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me and the reasons behind it)

I filed a 20.12.04 complaint with the Law Society, against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT).

As summarised under Doc library # 2.5, having not only turned its (typically) corrupt blind eye to Silverstone and Salim's outrageous conduct, it also endorsed parts of it.

As to the rest, in its 08.02.05 'reply' it kicked the ball out of its court - by, among other, falsely claiming that my "alleged criminal offences should be reported to the police".

The equally corrupt Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) took a similar line in its 01.03.05 initial 'reply' to my 02.02.05 complaint against Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)...

- by kicking the ball immediately out of its court - by stating that : the appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint were "through civil or criminal proceedings": snapshot RICS # A.

Unsurprisingly, in the light of my experience with Her Majesty's police, by then (2002 and 2003) - I saw no point my approaching it.

My subsequent experience, in 2007, followed by my experience in Oct 10 (# 6, above) - confirmed that I had made the right decision.

Had the Law Society and RICS operated as proper 'regulators', they would have referred their members to the police.

In fact, they were laughing their head off, as they have implicit/explicit 'Memorandums of Understanding' with the police e.g. the Law Society (see below, Association of Chief Police Officers).

At the end of the day: behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil of 'legislation' and 'regulations', ALL in the British Establishment close rank in their network of symbiotic, masonic relationships.

Back to list

(# 8 - Removed)

 

(9) How Her Majesty's police et.al. in the State sector will spend millions of £s to get somebody's 'scalp' - and reports on the police in general

 

(9.1)- Waste of Pounds 5-7 million (US$8.8-12.4m) of taxpayer' money investigating one of its own

 

In 2003 Kensington police was widely reported in the media as having spent £5-7 million (US$8.8-12.4m) of taxpayers' money investigating one of its own. (NB: All the highlights in the extracts from the press articles are mine)

The net result of this massive expenditure was an admission that

"[the Officer under investigation] ...may even have been owed Pounds 400 [US$700]"

The following are extracts from 2 of the many press articles at the time (Both articles were long).

The Times , 16 Sep 03

"...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$8.8m]"

"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 "

"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"

 

The Guardian , 20 Mar 04

"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)"

"...the prosecution was forced to admit that, rather than overclaiming pounds 270 from the Black Police Association (BPA), Dizaei was owed around pounds 400 [US$700]"

"Dizaei [said] "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"

"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."

(NB: Ali Dizaei received a prison sentence in 2010 - as a result of a court action by a member of the public)

This is how far Kensington police et. al. are prepared to go - at the taxpayers' expense

(As I ask under Home Office # 4, I wonder how many millions of £s the British State has so far spent persecuting me).

Back to list

(9.2)- My experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police is symptomatic of the state of the police force: OUT OF CONTROL

(For examples of other people's experience with the police see: Media page ; My Diary 3 Apr 10 ; 13 Apr 08)

While my experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police demonstrates that this police force is out of control - because it is not controlled (# 5, above), it is symptomatic of the general state of the police:

The Independent, 30 Nov 08 - "The police are a law unto themselves" (See also 21 May 09 article below which also raises this issue). Of course, the police believes this because: its unlawful conduct is endorsed by 'the Establishment' (my case), and the rest of the Establishment behaves in the same way.

In Feb 09, 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', in which it stated:

"The police in England and Wales are the most expensive in the developed world, but fail to deliver" (1)

"The 43 forces are run as fiefdoms by their Chief Constables"

"ACPO (2) ...a self-perpetuating oligarchy - is the key influence on police forces, in a textbook example of producer capture."

"...The police in England and Wales are relatively free of corruption in comparison with other countries" (3)

"...measured by the British Crime Survey... the public's confidence in the police is falling dramatically: 92% in 1982 down to 47% in 2004".

(1)- Due to spending time on activities outside its official mandate? e.g. as in my case.

(2)- ACPO = Association of Chief Police Officers - Unbelievably, an 'independent' company run by chief police officers. In Jan 11, it was 'apparently' stripped of its function: as National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism (NCDE), to run undercover spy operations, etc. (see My Diary: 2011- Introduction ; 13 Apr 08, surveillance Britain, for detail on some ACPO's activities)

Mail on Sunday, 15 Feb 09 - "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"

Examples of ACPO's involvement in police conduct and complaints by the public:

  • (1)- It issued a Hate Crime Manual "for the recording of a hate incident or crime", on which the "IPCC has mirrored its definition of a hate crime" (ISG-B75, pg 186)
  • (3)- It can also get involved in complaints "made about the head of a professional standards department" (ISG-#113, pg45) (NB: As it has done in my case??? - considering the 'handling' of my complaint, including by the IPCC)

Unsurprisingly, in the mutual protection environment of the British Establishment, ACPO has a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with the Law Society. (NB: Jack Straw confirmed the existence of this MoU to an MP - see letter of Mar 10)

(NB: It endorses my decision to ignore the Law Society (and RICS) 'recommendation' that "[I] need to report [my] alleged criminal offences to the police": # 7, above).

Daily Mail, 21 Feb 10 - "Millions of anti-terror cash spent on luxury London flats for police chiefs" "

...ACPO's Terrorism & Allied Matters (TAM) committee, headed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, has used millions of pounds from the budget to buy flats..."

(3)- A footnote at the bottom of the page, stating a reference dated 2003, suggests that the source data was from 2002 and possibly older. Hence, the assertion appeared to be based on data that was at least 7 years out of date). (In addition to my experience with the police, some of the below articles, as well as prior media reports (My Diary 2 Aug 06) also reported on police corruption). (A lot more has been reported since: Media page)

The 31.03.09 report by the IPCC to the Public Accounts Committee, states that "In 2007-08, nearly 29,000 complaints were made against the police"

(NB: In the context of complaints against the police, note e.g. Northumbria police nominated itself for an award from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (it won!) - for its 'performance' following one of its officers killing a 16-year old girl, due to his failure to use the car's flashing light or siren, as he was going at high speed ('Sick' police force win PR award for the way they handled death of schoolgirl... killed by patrol car", The Daily Mail, 24 Mar 10))

"Police fail to investigate one third of crimes" , Sunday Telegraph, 22 Nov 09

"Police failed to investigate more than 1.5 million reported crimes last year. The offences included sex attacks, robberies, fraud, violent crimes and drug offences, as well as large numbers of burglaries and thefts"

 

Also (other extracts, above) in The Independent, 13 Feb 10 - "Root out corrupt officers, police told",

Nick Hardwick, then Chair of the IPCC, also said to be aware "of officers using the police computer system to pass information to criminal associates" - and quoted an example.

(NB: His comments about 'cleaning the police of corruption' are totally meaningless - see above # 5.4, my experience with the IPCC) (See Media page for subsequent examples of the police selling information).

 

"Property fraud: now the Metropolitan Police get in on the act" , The Times, 19 Mar 09

"Last week the Metropolitan Police announced the launch of its property industry counter-fraud forum — PFAST (Property Forum Acting for Safe Transactions — Property Fraud Forum) in conjunction with a number of partners including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics)"

The police "head of the economic and specialist crime command at the Met" is quoted as saying "...we will continue to work with our partners to strengthen the fight against economic crime".

In the light of my experience with the police, added to my experience with the RICS, I laughed my head off when I saw that - as it would, no doubt, be in the same way they "fight" against the Rachman criminal landlords and their aides, including members of the RICS.

— "Police misconduct costs forces £44m", The Times, 3 Dec 07 [NB: It should say 'Cost the taxpayer']

"The bulk was paid out for wrongful arrests, assaults, malicious prosecutions and abuses of human rights... The figures show that between 2002 and 2007 the 55 police forces received more than 31,000 claims... The survey also exposed [that] More than half did not keep accessible records of claims, complaints or court cases..."

In all, 31,829 claims were lodged over five years, resulting in 1,825 court actions. But only 467, or 24 per cent, of those claims reached court. Most were settled or paid of"

 

In an article in The Times, 21 May 09, headed "Ingrained arrogance in the police leads to miscarriages of justice", The Times, 21 May 09 - see Media page for extracts.

 

"Criminals in the police? I've met plenty of them", Mail on Sunday, 15 Mar 09, by Brian Paddick, a former Metropolitan Police Commander:

"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".

(NB: As can be seen from the Media page, more can be added - including from other parts of the Establishment)

"Met police inquiry into unexplained £2m expense spending", Guardian, 12 Nov 07. In Jun 09, examples of personal use of their American Express card, by police individuals, included: "a breast implant operation; women's clothing; fishing rod"

 

We have all been made criminals, Sunday Times, 1 Mar 09 - quoting the former MI5 Chief, Dame Stella Rimington: “We now have more to fear from our police state than from terrorism”.

The same article states that we are “sliding into a police state… A decade ago the police could arrest us only for serious crimes. Now they can arrest us for anything”.

Very true e.g.

I have been falsely criminalized for 'daring' to stand up to a crook and his facilitators in the police et.al. in 'the Brotherhood'.

Other of 'the little people' have been criminalized for ridiculous reasons: e.g. in addition to the examples on the media page:

(See also other articles in: Media; My Diary 2011 - Intro re. phone hacking and covert surveillance of campaigners)

 

ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN MY CASE REPORTED ON THIS PAGE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS PAGE - AND TO SUBESEQUENTLY MAITAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN   DOING .

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top