The HCPC supports Child Stealing


Chris Spivey


What follows is the outcome of my complaint to the HCPC – which many of you also made.

How appropriate then, that a major cover-up and whitewash should take place on 9/11.

Indeed it is fair to say that we always knew in our hearts that they would try to cover-up the mass of conclusive evidence that I provided showing wrongdoing by the Social Workers, Nicole Mile & Julie Robinson while acting in collusion with the Essex Police to steal my Grandson Clayton.

I did however expect the paedophile protectors and suppliers, to at least address each count of wrong doing and give an explanation as to why they rejected the evidence… But as you will see, they didn’t even bother to do that.

Unfortunately I am getting more and more bogged down with legal issues – as the nonce & nonce protectors knew that I would – and as such perhaps some of you who also complained to the HCPC could have a think as to where we go from here to prevent Miles & Robinson ever being allowed to practice again…


11 September 2015

Our Ref: FTP43138, FTP43139, FTP43140 &FTP43141,

Dear Mr. Spivey,

Health and Care Professions Council and Sarah McCormack, Nicole Miles, Lorraine Pennington, and Julie Robinson

I am writing further to the concerns you have raised regarding the above individuals.

I understand your concerns regarding the Registrants to be as follows:

1. failed to follow standard procedures when completing an assessment on the child;

2. neglected to gather and verify information crucial to the assessment;

3. failed to verify the correct names of those involved in the investigation;

4. Failed to verify dates relevant of the investigation;

5. began checks with a view to commencing an assessment before a referral was received and continued these checks after the relevant time limit for completing them had expired;

6. deliberately worded the assessment so as to leave it open to misinterpretation; lied to and attempted to manipulate the child’s mother and grandfather; submitted an incomplete report;

7. presented a section 17 assessment as being carried out under section 47 so as to access personal data in order to inflate the apparent risk to the child;

8. deliberately noted the child’s grandfather as being a risk to the child despite their being evidence that he was not; and

9. The assessment report included bad spelling and grammar.

I have now reviewed in full the information you have provided to the HCPC and it has been decided that the HCPC will not be pursuing your concerns.

This is because we are not in receipt of any information that suggests that the Registrants are not fit to practise. The reason for this is that the information that has been gathered does not disclose current fitness to practise issues in respect of the Registrants. As such, the HCPC’ s Standard of Acceptance has not been met in these matters as there is no evidence to support allegations that the Registrants’ fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Accordingly, the case files regarding these Registrants have now been closed.

I am aware that you disagree with the assessment reports during. However, please note that the fitness to practise process is not the appropriate mechanism for questioning registrants’  professional judgement or challenging the content of professional reports or the exercise of statutory powers. Furthermore, we have been advised by the Local Authority that the Registrant’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances.

I realise that this may not be the decision that you were hoping for, but please be advised that the decision to close these cases should not be seen in anyway as a comment on the circumstances or the issues you have described. It is just that on the basis of the information that has been supplied to us, there is insufficient evidence to support allegations that the Registrants’ fitness to practise is currently impaired.

The HCPC has the burden of proof and therefore requires credible evidence which supports the concerns in order to proceed with an investigation. The evidence provided does not support an allegation that the registrant’s knowingly made a false or misleading statement or otherwise in bad faith. In addition, during the process of our investigation we were advised by the Local Authority that the Registrants are working safely and effectively and that they have no concerns regarding the way in which they are working.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain this further; fitness to practise allegations comprise of three elements:

  • the facts upon which the allegation is based;
  • the ‘ statutory ground’ (e.g. misconduct or lack of competence) which it is alleged those facts constitute; and
  • the proposition that, based upon that statutory ground, the registrant’ s fitness to practise is impaired.

Where an allegation proceeds to a final hearing, it is for the HCPC to prove the facts based on the civil standard of proof (the balance of probabilities).

The other two elements, the statutory ground and impairment, do not require specific proof but are matters of the judgement of the Panel hearing the case, based on the proven facts.
Importantly, the applicable test is that fitness to practise is impaired. The need to establish impairment at the time a case is heard is therefore an important factor in deciding whether to pursue fitness to practise allegations. Consequently, for a fitness to practise allegation to meet the Standard of Acceptance there needs to be credible evidence which suggests that the registrant’ s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

I note that you advised that you have not raised these matters with the relevant Local Authority directly. Therefore, you may wish to do so as they may be able to assist you further.

Please be advised that this does not prevent you from raising concerns about these Registrants to us in the future should new information become available to you.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for bringing these matters to the attention of the HCPC.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this letter, please contact me directly on 020 7840 9187 or on Freephone (in the UK) 0800 328 4218. If I am not available you can speak to another Case Manager in Case Team 5.

Please quote the reference number at the top of this letter when contacting the Fitness to Practise Department.

Yours sincerely – yeah course you are!

Akua Dwomoh-Bonsu
Case Manager


So it would seem that Akua Dwomoh-Bonsu does not consider that I have provided him/her with “credible evidence”

Course, those of you familiar with the case know that claim is a load of bollox.

However, for those of you who don’t, what follows is a copy of an email that I sent to the HCPC, taken from my article, ‘Don’t Take No For An Answer’, written on 29th March 2015 and which will give you an overview of the complaint and the evidence that I sent to back the complaint up.

I should also point out that at the time a Ms Vandenbroucke – a qualified barrister – was handling the case.

Ms Vandenwhatsits had previously closed the case on the basis that I had not personally submitted a complaint – albeit HCPC rules deem that unnecessary. Nevertheless, she subsequently reopened it when I did.

However, the case was then later passed on to Akua Dwomoh-Bonsu, without explanation.

You can of course read the aforementioned article in full by clicking  HERE

This then, is what I had to say in that email.

My name is Christopher Spivey, I am an Investigative Journalist and the above reference relates to a complaint made by many of my readers, in relation to my Grandson, Clayton Christopher Spivey and the abhorrent, criminal actions of the following four Social Workers, employed by Castle Point Council’s Social Service Department:

Nicole S Miles (FTP40166)

Julie Robinson (FTP40167)

Lorraine Pennington (FTP40168)

Sarah McCormack (FTP40169).

Firstly, I should say that I have now been made privy to your bulk, standard reply, sent to those who wrote letters of complaint in regard to this matter and as such I feel that since you mentioned me quite extensively, I should also officially document my observations in regards to your response before I outline my extremely serious complaint about the Social Workers listed above.

In your response to those who complained on my behalf, you start off by saying that:“We note that the concerns you raised relate to the Spivey family. We note that the Spivey family themselves have not raised any concerns with the HCPC directly in relation to this matter”.

Now I do have to say that I do not understand the significance of that comment since the “complaints” section on the HCPC website clearly states that:

Anyone can contact us and raise a concern about a registrant. This includes members of the public, employers, the police and other professionals”.

Indeed, the HCPC’s position on this matter is very clear and accordingly the website then goes on to state that the only instance where you will not investigate is when “complaints are sent anonymously” – which as far as I am aware, was not the case in any of the complaints that you received on this matter… Although obviously I can’t claim to be aware of everyone who submitted a complaint to you.

Course, that fact is irrelevant since in the event your reply was addressed to those who provided you with their details.

I would therefore suggest that there shouldn’t have been any need for either myself or my daughter, Stacey Spivey (Clayton’s mother) to complain personally. Especially so, since to my knowledge the huge number of complainants were quite specific in the cause of their concern and had in fact in most instances directed you to an in depth account – written by myself – going into great detail about my family’s appalling treatment at the hands of the above named Social Workers.

Furthermore, that detailed account of mine included evidenced, serious wrongdoing carried out by the social worker’s in question, as well as also providing evidence that would strongly suggest that in the case of Miles & Robinson; they were acting in collusion with Officers from the Essex Police Force.

I should just add in regard to that collusion the fact that – as you doubtlessly already know – the problem with social worker/police collusion is not exclusive to Essex.

Indeed, the shameful truth is that you would be very hard pressed to find a Social Service Department in the country that isn’t acting in cahoots with their corresponding Police Forces at any one given time or another, and I trust that I do not need to point you in the direction of the mass of documented evidence concurring that such collusion exists.

In fact, you are probably already aware that the Essex Police Force are currently on “restricted duties” and under investigation for wrongdoing in many, many sexual abuse cases, dating from last year to as far back as 50 years ago… And from what I am told, these complaints are growing in number on a seemingly daily basis.

Mind you, the standard of policing is dire in Southend, evidenced by the fact that just last week I point blank asked a Detective working out of Southend Central how he felt about the shame heaped upon our County by our corrupt police force, to which he answered that he knew “nothing about it”.

Which I personally found very worrying from a detective employed by the police force in question, particularly as that wrongdoing has been big news in the national press of late:

Staff at Essex Police are on restricted duties after the force announced the cases of 59 alleged victims, some young children, over nearly five decades were being investigated.

One officer within the child abuse unit has been suspended while 11 others have been placed away from the department following the referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) – the largest referral of its kind in the force’s history.

Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh said the force has now referred additional matters to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

These are understood to involve similar issues – child sexual exploitation, the use of intelligence and the quality of response officers – as the cases already raised.

The inquiry was announced earlier this month when Essex Police said the more recent investigations include allegations of a lack of honesty or integrity by officers.

Moreover, I strongly believe that a significant number of those complaints will also expand to include the Essex County Social Services.

Incidentally, it should be noted that I also have an on-going, extremely serious complaint lodged with the IPCC, which also takes in the complaint regarding my grandson, made to your employers in regard to the aforementioned Social Workers.

But I digress.

The next part of your response is very vague since you state that:We have requested further information from Essex County Council in relation to the concerns you have raised”. 

This then would suggest that you are not yet privy to the requested information, although you then go on to state that:“The information gathered does not provide any credible evidence to suggest that the assessment conducted raises fitness to practise concerns about the Registrants or that their fitness to practise is currently impaired”.

I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify in writing whether you are referring in the above to the information that you “have” requested from ECC, along with the significance of that information in regard to the complaint, or whether you are now referring to information gathered elsewhere?

After all, if you are still waiting on information I fail to see how you can possibly state that:The HCPC is therefore unable to pursue this matter and the case file in relation to this matter has been closed”.

Indeed, I truly believe that those concerned citizens who took the time to complain are entitled to be given a much more detailed explanation of how you reached the aforementioned conclusion – having obviously studied the conclusive evidence that I provided as attachments in a number of articles which document in great detail the often criminal wrongdoing committed by the four social workers, before contacting you.

Especially so, given the seriousness of the complaints – to which your rather lacking in detail response did nothing to instil any faith or confidence in them, where your organisation is concerned.

And since recent reports indicate that public confidence in government departments – such as the British Social Services and the Police – is at an all time low, I would have thought that as the regulating body for all of Britain’s Social Workers, your employers would have been desperate to remedy that fact.

Nevertheless, you then state that:“We also note that our investigations into this matter are essentially limited without the consent of the family to pursue this matter any further as the concerns raised relate specifically to the family and as such they would be in the best position to provide further information”.

“It is not the practise for the HCPC to pursue further information from families in this respect if they have not engaged with the HCPC themselves to raise concerns”.

And once again I have to point out that is in contradiction to what the HCPC website states. After all, the complaints that you have received are in connection to the conduct of the named social workers and as such it should not matter whether that conduct pertains to one family or a whole host of families.

Indeed, I do not have to tell you that along with the job title, comes a great responsibility and as such, any act of wrongdoing is one act too many.

Moreover, whilst I can understand that it is not normally your practice to “pursue further information”, I would suggest that the sheer volume of complaints alone would have been more than sufficient to warrant sidestepping that policy on this occasion – even more so given mind to the high number of extremely serious allegations forming the basis of the complaint and bearing in mind that nearly all of those complaints clearly provided you with easily accessible links leading to a huge amount of irrefutable evidence to back the allegations.

Worryingly enough, the fact that you cannot possibly have paid any real attention – if any at all – to that irrefutable, wealth of conclusive evidence, found a mere mouse click away, shows a blatant, contemptuous disregard for the very public that your organisation was set up specifically to protect… In theory anyway.

I say that because I notice that your website quite unashamedly states: As an organisation, our aim is to make sure that we always provide the best quality of service for all our stakeholders.

Indeed, I couldn’t help but notice that there is no such undertaking to provide the same quality of service to those that the organisation was set up to protect.

Course, that would explain the wording in regard to how the HCPC website describes its role: We are a regulator, and we were set up to protect the public – the all important word in that opening sentence – found in the “ABOUT” section of the website – being ‘were’Being a writer, I do tend to notice these things.

But once again I digress.

So, In other words did the sheer volume of legitimate complaints that you received from these well educated, law abiding, albeit extremely concerned members of the public not set alarm bells ringing? 

I mean surely you do not seriously believe that these self same, well educated, law abiding, albeit extremely concerned members of the public took the time and effort to write up the complaint and then post it to you without first seeing the evidence to warrant them doing so?

Or do you receive a high volume of legitimate complaints, all pertaining to named individuals registered with you, on a regular basis – which in turn would imply that the HCPC is badly failing in its duty and is not fit for purpose?

However, in fairness you do go on to state that:If the Spivey family wishes to raise concerns then they are free to do so and the HCPC will be able to make further enquiries”.

Although it could also be said that with receiving so many complaints, the HCPC should automatically have made it a priority to investigate all avenues of enquiry.

After all, many of the allegations relate to serious criminal offences – which carry lengthy prison terms – having been committed by Social Workers registered by your organisation.

And since a social worker’s assessment report has sufficient influence with a judge in regard to court proceedings, the judges ruling much more often than not will inevitably devastate the lives of parents and children alike and as such; nothing short of a person who has a whiter than white work record, without so much as a blemish on their character should be acceptable to sign your register.

Indeed, how can the HCPC condone any errors in a social worker’s report – including bad spelling & grammar – when that report has the potential to remove innocent children from a loving home environment?

Certainly, bad spelling, missed punctuation & poor grammar alone should be more than enough to cast a giant shadow over a person’s suitability to undertake any assessment which carries the responsibility of a child’s future… There is no need for it and indicates a lack of intelligence, apathy and sloppiness, none of which inspire confidence.

Finally, it also has to be said that your choice of wording in your reply describing the allegations as being “concerns”, only serves to trivialise the extremely serious complaint which when given the attention it properly deserves, you will quickly realise that the complaint is anything but.

And with that in mind, I submit this email to you – which will be followed up in writing – as my official complaint in regard to the social workers listed at the beginning.

Furthermore, I give my expressed permission for you to answer any questions or address any concerns that the public may put to you in regard to my complaint.

I think that you should also be aware that all but two telephone conversations that took place throughout our dealings with the above named social workers were recorded and ALL meetings were filmed and recorded.

ALL of the social workers in question were made well aware of the fact before entering my home.

And with that in mind the facts are as follows:

I was arrested at the totally unacceptable time of 1:30 AM, which violates CODE B of PACE, without arrest or search warrant, on the 30th of July 2014 on suspicion of committing a misdemeanor. That arrest is now subject to an IPCC investigation along with the subsequent malicious report made by the police to the Social Services..

The arrest should not have involved the social services at all, as confirmed by Nicole Miles on film. Nevertheless, the police appear to have made the aforementioned malicious allegation to the Social Services, on what must have been the same day as I was arrested – which was then passed on to Nicole Miles, also on that very same day.

Furthermore, despite the trivial matters raised in that malicious referral, Miles must nevertheless have started a C & F Assessment before I had even been released from custody since I wasn’t let out until gone 6:30PM (see attachment 1).



Indeed, you have to question how busy – or not as the case maybe – can Castle Point Council’s Social Services (CPCSS) be when the main issue in a referral is a dirty cot sheet – later proved to be without foundation – which was nevertheless acted upon immediately by CPCSS.

Following commencement of the police allegation, we had a stream of social workers knocking at our door, until Nicole Miles finally turned up when we were in three or four days later.

However, I refused Miles entry into my home, but Clayton was brought to the door to show Miles that he was fine.

We later received a phone call, from the CPCSS department asking if we would agree to a social worker visiting with Clayton’s health visitor.

Now, despite both me and my daughter having an excellent relationship with Evelyn (Clayton’s health visitor), who had indeed visited our home on many occasions immediately after Clayton was first born, the request was turned down.

We then received a phone call from Evelyn herself – who sounded totally perplexed that the Social Services wanted her to accompany them on a visit to our home.

Obviously I explained to her what had happened and she actually poured scorn on the malicious accusation – as I say, based on the fact that she had visited our home many times in the past.

She then offered a fair compromise by telling me that if we took Clayton to the clinic on his normal clinic day, she would weigh him & assess his development and if all was normal, she told me that she would refuse the CPCSS request.

So we duly did as Evelyn asked and as expected, all was normal with Clayton and as such the health visitor informed the CPCSS that she had no concerns for Clayton whatsoever and would not be accompanying a social worker on a home visit.

It is also worth noting that just 3 months prior to my illegal arrest, Clayton had his 9 month assessment carried out at our home by a Health Visitor whom we had never so much as set eyes on before.

This Health Visitor had also given Clayton a glowing, clean bill of health and despite inspecting the bathroom, kitchen and Clayton’s bedroom, she had no issues with “dirty sheets” or “dirty” anything else for that matter.

And in turn we heard no more from CPCSS until the letter found in attachment 2 came through our letterbox.

You will note that the letter states that the “assessment” – of which neither me or my daughter knew anything about – had been cancelled, thus proving that an assessment had been started, the significance of which will all become clear in due course.



Approximately five weeks later, I was illegally arrested again – without arrest or search warrant – on the 6th of October 2014, over allegations of having ‘child pornography’on my computers.

The computers had been illegally taken against my will during the illegal search of my property when I was arrested on suspicion of a MISDEMEANOR in the very early hours of the 30th of July.

And the very fact that it had taken the police over two months to find these images should set alarm bells ringing in anyones head.

In fact even more so when amongst the alleged “child porn” images were such photos as a Led Zeppelin album cover, which is still available to buy in most good record shops today, legal photos of the actress Brooke Shields and a french actress whose name escapes me.

There was also some of them Japanese Manga cartoon things, some photos of paintings by the artist Graham Ovenden, all of which are readily & legally available via a quick google search – some of which were once owned by the former MP Sir Alistair McAlpine – and a photograph owned by Sir Elton John which had been deemed to be legal in a British court of law.

Every single one of those photos – except the Manga which could have come from anywhere – is still readily accessible on my website and more importantly; they are all are legal images.

I should also explain that as an investigative journalist, I frequently expose and write about paedophile MP’s, Celebrities, Judges and SENIOR POLICEMEN.

I have a huge following with my website averaging somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 people a day. And despite only been going three and a quarter years my website has had over 9.5 MILLION hits to date.

I frequently get asked to do radio interviews and make personal appearances up and down the country.

Unfortunately, the fact that I have a huge following and the psychotic nature of those I write about makes me very unpopular with the British Government, not to mention the Police Top Brass… Or put another way, the people that your registered social workers should be looking very, very closely at.

Indeed, one operation which ended in a group of ‘Hackers’ closing down a number of Child Porn sites had made the front page of the Daily Mirror in December 2012.

The links to those child porn sites had been provided by me which having first been passed on to the police – who immediately sprang into inaction – resulting in a friend of mine – who ran a site tracking paedophiles – passed the links on to the Hackers… Indeed, I have all of the paper trail to prove that fact… Bear with me, this is all going somewhere but you have to have the full picture to realise how everything fits together.

You should also be aware that in the summer of 2012, I received a letter from Detective Chief Inspector, Gary Biddle in connection to these [legal] photos (see attachments 3&4).



You would now be entitled to ask why a DCI would make himself busy on such a relatively trivial crime in the grand scale of crime.

You will also note DCI Biddle’s observation – which I have underlined in red – about my reason for having the photos, is purely COMMON SENSE, yet that fact does not fit the agenda in play here and in her rush to vilify me, Nicole Miles had neglected to seek out any of this evidence whatsoever.

It is also worth noting that since the Social Workers guidebook states that every case should be approached with an open mind and be based on the facts & circumstances surrounding the case, it should be noted that I have 5 grown up children, 2 boys, 3 girls – none of whom have ever so much as been in trouble with the police.

And in the case of my youngest daughter, Stacey (Clayton’s mother), it should be noted that I have brought her up ALONE since she was 6 months old… None of my children or anyone else for that matter has ever made any allegations of me using inappropriate behaviour towards children .

You will also note that unlike most paedophiles or child abusers, I have NEVER had a job that would bring me into close contact with children. Indeed I was a builder for many years and you don’t see many children driving diggers on building sites after which I became a tattoo artist for nearly 20 years, which of course has an 18 and over law governing the trade. I then became a writer, working from home around 3 years ago.

However, none of those facts counted for anything with Nicole Miles – which later proved to be a great source of embarrassment to her department, leading to her only taking a support role in all further interviews despite her name being on the assessment forms.

The police also questioned me in their interview following my second illegal arrest, about some topless photos sent to me by two ex-girlfriends, both of whom are over 21 and some beastiality photos that they could not say whether or not they were covertly downloaded without my knowledge and at a date that may have even been before I owned the second hand computers.

The computers have also been used countless times since I have owned them by at least 20 other people to my knowledge – at least half of whom would have had unrestricted access to the computers without me being present…  You see, as a general rule I sleep in the day and work through the night when the silence makes it easier to concentrate.

However, there was also ONE HIDDEN FILE which the police allege was downloaded onto my computer between 3 and 3:30 AM on the 29th of July 2014… Nevertheless, it should be taken into account, and can be clearly evidenced that I would not know how to download a secret/hidden file even if my life depended on it – let alone find the thing again.

You see, I am absolutely useless with computers as can be evidenced by the countless emails sent back and forth between me and my website’s tech-guy. Now if I knew anything about PC’s, I certainly wouldn’t need a full time tech-guy.

In fact, if my tech guy drops dead from a heart attack, I am buggered because he holds all the passwords and tech info. In other words, he has the equivalent to the deeds and keys to my house, and if I am ever locked out, I have to knock on the door to get back in.

You will also note that it is extremely significant, not to mention convenient for the social services, that the file was thumbnail photos of little boys, although I couldn’t state that fact myself since I did not have my glasses with me and as such I couldn’t make head nor tail of what was going on in the photos.

But as I say, it is significant that the file contained little boys – what with my grandson being one. Understand?

More suspiciously still was the fact that the secret squirrel cache was according to the police, downloaded EXACTLY 24 hours prior to the police conducting an illegal search of my living room (where the computers were kept), which neither myself or Stacey was allowed to witness – contrary to the law – and which lasted over one and a half hours.

And I mean exactly 24 hours. 

Moreover, despite the ongoing investigation there has been nothing more uncovered since I was arrested on the 6th of October and of the 4 original accusations, they have now dropped down to just two.

*UPDATE: The number of photos has now dropped to two images – one being the Elton John owned LEGAL photo and the other being mild beastiality which I have never been questioned or arrested for. 

All earlier allegations of ‘making’ indecent images have gone away, and the beastiality photos that the police couldn’t say whether or not they were unintentionally downloaded covertly with something legitimate – although I doubt it as I can’t download – have now been reduced to one single image dating back to june 2011.

Moreover, that one single image apparently is of a woman giving a rottweiler oral sex… And wouldn’t you know that just like the hidden file contained thumbnails of little boys … And my grandson is a little boy, my dogs are Rottweilers.

Indeed, the lack of originality would be laughable were it not so serious.

The other allegation is and I quote:Possess indecent photograph/pseudo photograph of a child.

A pseudo photograph is as far as I am aware a drawing or painting.

Nevertheless, quite exactly what that allegation relates to is anyones guess since the police are not saying, but my solicitor is at a loss as to why the case has not been dropped yet and she confirmed to me just this week what I already knew; namely had it been anyone else but me the police would not even be bothering.

You will also note that at the time of my arrest in july, I had in the living room along with my 2 computers, a laptop on the magazine shelf of a coffee table on the other side of the room and in the opposite corner to that there is a single cupboard and drawer, which contained a computer hard-drive and at least half a dozen memory cards.

And since the police failed to find those unhidden items in that one and a half hours they were supposed to be searching in there – and in doing so breaking the law on so many levels to boot – you can only conclude that it took 3 police officers that long to unplug two computers; after which they left having neglected to search my bedroom, the kitchen, the bathroom and a walk-in hallway cupboard… Then again, I did tell you earlier that the Southend police are not the brightest.

I will also once again remind you that my job mainly deals with writing about corrupt/paedophile people in high powered jobs and I have long been the focus of the British Security Service’s attention.

Moreover, the 3 policemen that they sent to arrest me for the second time – whom in the process kicked down my front door and unnecessarily broke my bedroom window, despite their assurances that they only wanted to talk to me, which I declined on the basis that they had no search or arrest warrant – are the exact same 3 police thugs that I have video evidence of assaulting and threatening to kill someone that they had arrested a few weeks prior to kicking my door down, breaking my window and then asking me to sign a form stating that they had caused “no damage”… It is calleds police harassment and intimidation I believe.

Their earlier victim whom the trio had assaulted, had sent me the footage after seeing the harrowing footage of the police arresting me and immediately recognised the trio.

The footage of their assault on him had been filmed by his girlfriend and consisted of one of them trying to strangle him in the backseat of the very same unmarked car that they took me away in, whilst the other two herberts used their backs to try shield the assault from the camera.

I think incidents like that are what led to the Southend Police being christened “Thugs & Mugs”.

You can see the frightening footage of the out of control thugs destroying my house and terrifying both Stacey and Clayton in the process… Yes they were very well aware that both were here, by clicking on the following YouTube link

And I am sure that once you have watched that video you will agree that the police action was totally over the top especially with Stacey and Clayton being here along with the fact that I was back home less than 6 hours later.

You will also note that only one of the three policemen conducted a search of my home on this occasion which lasted no more than 5 minutes and involved a cursory look in my bedroom and Stacey’s bedroom.

Meanwhile, I was being held in my living room – under a totally different law to what the policeman told me he had arrested me under, to the totally different law stated on the paperwork. thus proving that the Thugs & Mugs are as bad and incompetent at filling in forms as the Essex Social Workers.

Once again, I have that paperwork in my possession including the unsigned form that they wanted me to sign stating that there was no damage. We were then forced to live in our home with a boarded up door and window until December 2014 – some two months in total.

Throughout this time none of the 4 social workers so much as lifted a finger to try and get the door repaired quicker, despite the bitter cold of winter… I wonder why they didn’t seem to be concerned in any way?

Nevertheless, as I say I was being held in the front room whilst Sherlock did his illegal 5 minute tour of mine and Stacey’s bedrooms, whilst neglecting to so much as step foot in the walk in hall cupboard, the kitchen, the bathroom and the living room where that laptop, hard-drive and memory sticks that the police had missed on the 30th of July, still remained in the exact same places that they had always been.

Moreover they couldn’t apparently be bothered to take the computer that I am writing this email on now which was in the room with us, since I didn’t know that they were coming. And they didn’t look into a single one of the 1000 or so DVD cases in here all of which – for all that they knew – could have contained child porn films.

So, given the reason that I was arrested I am sure that you would agree that only an idiot would conclude that Essex police were acting lawfully, honestly and carrying out their duties with integrity… And it goes without saying that this second arrest is subject to an IPCC investigation, as is the assault on the aforementioned victim of police brutality.

Now, along with the fact that Nicole Miles opened an assessment on the 30th of July, before I had even been released from police custody, based on an unfounded, trivial, malicious referral that should never have involved the social services,

the fact that Miles reopened that assessment – as opposed to starting a new one – on the 1st of October 2014 (again the referral was acted upon on the very same day that it was received), is quite astounding.

Especially since I WASN’T actually arrested until the 6th of October – got that? The 6th of October – which would certainly indicate to any logical thinking person that collusion was taking place between CPCSS and the Essex police.

The likelihood of that being the case is raised even further when you consider that Miles must have kept that assessment form, that she says was never started – in stark contradiction to herself and Julie Robinson a bit further down the line – which logic dictates could not possibly have had anything else written on it apart from the date (30-Jul-2014) and the name of our family doctor. (as seen below).


Yet why would she do that?

I mean why would she keep an assessment form for 68 days that had already been started and as such wasn’t of any use to anyone else?

After all, the malicious referral of the 30th of July wasn’t – by their own admission – really a matter for CPCSS and despite some evidence to suggest that Miles is psychic – having started an investigation 2 days before she could possibly have known that she was going to be asked since the malicious police referral was not made until the 1st of August – it is still stretching the realms of credibility to suggest that she could see what was going to happen 10 weeks down the line.

However, Miles appears to hope that nobody will notice that 30th of July start date since she later correctly states – in the very same assessment – that she didn’t  receive that malicious police referral until the 1st of August.


Course, there can be no mistake in reality because she MUST HAVE started the assessment on the 30th of July because that is the day that she contacted our family doctors – the Puzey Family Practice.


Besides, as you can see she has neatly typed 30-Jul-2014 into the area that says START DATE… Is that acceptable Ms Vandenbroucke?

Nevertheless that cancelled assessment form would have been no good to absolutely anyone because as I have already said; an assessment form with Clayton’s name on the top, a date and the name of a doctors surgery made the form unusable to anyone except Clay.

And since Miles could not have possibly known at that point that our paths would cross again 68 days later, she had no reason not to bin the form… Makes no sense does it?

Unless of course it had already been decided by the two criminal government agencies prior to July the 30th, that the indecent images were going to be found on my computer be it by hook or by crook, and as such the corrupt social workers had already started filling in the dates on the assessment, hence the date of the second police referral is given as being the 1st of October… Five whole days before I was arrested.


Now, this would make perfect sense of course and explain why the Thugs & Mugs turned up 4 handed at 1.30 AM in the early hours of the morning and barged into my house without a warrant to search or a warrant for my arrest.

After all, they would not have been granted a search warrant because they arrested me for suspicion of harassment – a misdemeanor – and as such, the thugs & mugs application would have been denied by a magistrate.

Yet they had to get their hands on the computers to plant the porn on there, hence the police had no choice but to break the law by conducting an illegal arrest and search, which then explains why the four thugs were so aggressive and did not do a search of the rest of my home, once they had finished their one and a half hour sabbatical in my front room.

And of course, the plod might well have had a search warrant issued for the 1st of October since that is certainly the date that Miles clearly states that she received the police referral about the child porn as well as being the date that she states that she started the 2nd assessment and also explains why she had correctly calculated the date that she had to finish the assessment as being the 20th of November, which is also clearly stated on the C & F Assessment as evidenced above.

Miles must have also had those dates all nicely prematurely filled in too before whatever it is that went wrong happened, since logic dictates that had she been waiting for confirmation of my arrest before adding the dates, then the stated 1st of October start to the 20th of November end, would not have ever been an issue.

Moreover, it only takes as little as 6 hours to obtain a search warrant, which with the charge now being one of possessing child porn, a magistrate would most definitely have issued the police with not only a search warrant but an arrest warrant too.

And it would also certainly be logical to apply for one since my first illegal arrest in the early hours of the morning looked bad enough and as such it would have been madness to carry out a second illegal arrest when there was absolutely no need to take the risk

But of course, search warrants are not open-ended, date wise and I am sure that a warrant issued for the 1st would have been well out of date by the 6th.

In fact, if the Thugs & Mugs had obtained a search warrant for the 1st of October, then it had run out by the 3rd of October – the date that the criminal Miles then states that I was arrested for the 2nd time.


Whilst once again, presumably hoping that no one would cotton on to the 1st of October date.

Moreover, that 3rd of October date must have also been prematurely added since they surely wouldn’t have all been dumb enough to get caught out again.

So, despite the search warrant question being speculation the cockeyed dates certainly are not… Tell me about Miles fitness to practice again Ms Vandenbroucke.

Furthermore, that is just about the only logical answer that makes sense and would also certainly explain why the corrupt Defective Constable, Coombes from Southend on Sea’s Criminal Investigation Department would be in charge of a misdemeanour case, which would usually be a uniformed officers territory.

Again, that is just logical since he is now in charge of the case despite him not being the arresting officer  and despite him not being one of the arresting or interviewing officers.

Moreover that would also be why the same corrupt defective is in charge of the rapidly decreasing allegations accusing me of possessing indecent images – which I would assume would usually be a case for the online internet police division, or whatever it is called.

Indeed, if there was collusion between Coombes, Miles and Robinson that would also explain why his hand was shaking when he went to click on the hidden file, during our interview – a fact that I can clearly be heard asking him about on the taped interview.

It would also explain why in the same interview his partner appeared to not want anything to do with the stitch up and indeed hardly said a word once I had accused them of planting that hidden file.

Whereas Coombes innocently asked how they could have possibly planted anything on my computers… Short house snide that he is.

Mind you, that subject  soon changed when I told him that if he really didn’t know how police routinely plant , then he should consider a career other than that of a detective.nasty stuff on people’s computers.

Now, to further back this claim of collusion you will see on attachment 4a that it is clearly stated that the referral was made following my arrest on suspicion of possessing child porn, with the start date being given as July the 30th and no mention whatsoever of the referral to the malicious allegation in sight, thus making it appear to anyone reading the assessment that it was started because of a child porn referral making the reader conclude that both of my arrests were for possession of child porn.



Miles does however mention the 1st (malicious) referral later on in passing under the section: “historical concerns”, which she clearly states was received on the 1st of August 2014 (as we have seen).

But of course by then the damage has already been done… Which is at best, malpractice and cannot be ignored.

Likewise, you cannot ignore, how Miles could have possibly known to commence the Assessment and start her enquiries on the 30th of July (as evidenced in attachment 1), two days PRIOR to receiving the referral on the 1st of August… Which would appear to be because I had been arrested for child porn, which I most certainly wasn’t.



Moreover, her explanation as to why the assessment didn’t go ahead, namely:“family refused for an assessment to be completed”, despite us never being asked. This will in turn confuse the reader into believing that the assessment is the only one undertaken, and [incorrectly] based on me being arrested twice for possession of child porn.

Furthermore, that is a complete contradiction to Robinson’s letter (attachment 2 above) which states that the “assessment HAS been CANCELLED”, which is further proof that an assessment was started, be it on the 30th of July or the 1st of August.

Worse still, the explanation given by Miles stating that:“The family refused for an assessment to be completed”  is a stark contradiction and totally at odds with her later claim that the assessment was closed because ‘she couldn’t get a policeman to attend my home with her(attachment 5a below).

ATTACHMENT 5a10541014_750938804980068_1008149281_na

This then is clear, irrefutable evidence of the ghastly woman tripping herself up with her own lies.

Attachment 6 (below) is evidence of Miles (covertly) re-opening the assessment on the 1st of October which she had started on the 30th of July (despite misleading the reader into thinking that she hadn’t), following a referral that she somehow received from the police an unfathomable TWO DAYS LATER – apparently in connection to Child Porn charges whereas she should have started a new C & F Assessment on the 1st of October.

 Which once again was in itself devoid of any logic since the 1st of October was in fact 5 whole days before the police even got around to arresting me on the 6th… How does that even work?



And yet you have no concerns in regard to this woman’s fitness to practice Ms Vandenbroucke?

I do not need to remind you again that these C & F assessments are what a judge relies on in court which can – and in most cases does – have devastating consequences for both parent and child.

I would also ask you how you would feel if you found yourself in such a position?

Would you want that assessment to be 100 % accurate, knowing that its contents may mean that you never see your child again? Or would you be happy with an assessment that was written in a slapdash manner, with misleading & prejudicial information to your detriment and which was submitted despite being incomplete in content, not to mention carried out under false pretences and littered with errors?

Miles then further states that I was arrested on the 3rd of October, which once again alludes to collusion with the police, in a plan that now appears to have gone badly wrong somewhere along the line for a second time (see attachment 7)

After all, Miles did not make any contact with us whatsoever until the 7th of October and then only by phone.



Miles then finally made her first visit on the 8th of october following a phone conversation with Stacey on the 7th.

She was however forced to end that meeting early amidst great embarrassment which I shall clarify shortly.

As she left, Miles made an appointment for the next day, which she then promptly cancelled by phone the following morning with a flimsy excuse that certainly didn’t ring true to me.

She then arranged another meeting for the following week which meant that despite the nature of the charges, Miles had only visited us the once – which was cut very short – in the two weeks that had passed since first beginning the assessment… Which is somewhat hypocritical and at total odds with the monster that she was trying to portray me as being.

Indeed, it is a very good job that I am not a child molester what with the likes of the grossly incompetent Miles masquerading as professionals.

Tellingly, at no time whatsoever did Miles or her line manager, Julie Robinson indicate that the assessment had been inexplicably prematurely started on the 1st of October and further added to on the 3rd of October.

Indeed, both Social Workers attempted to deceive me and my daughter into believing that the assessment was started after my arrest and did so by blatantly lying to both of us, which I shall provide conclusive evidence for in due course.

Now, that first meeting with Miles was the one and only meeting where she was the senior social worker, despite it being her investigation.

Indeed I rather suspect that was the real reason behind her cancelling the appointment that SHE had arranged for the following afternoon after our meeting on the 8th of October.

Never the less, the fact remains that Miles never again attended a meeting at ours without either Robinson or a much more senior social worker being present to take charge.

Course, as social workers go, Miles would make a good shop assistant. What is for certain though is that the woman looked me square in the eyes, twice, and blatantly lied to me without so much as skipping a beat.

Both of those lies can clearly be seen and heard on film – which I have not made public yet.

Moreover, I also have Julie Robinson on film saying to me that we would need to talk about those lies away from the “you know” meaning camera, after I had taken her by surprise by raising the issue.

The first lies that Miles told me was in response to me reminding her that the original assessment had been – according to Robinson’s letter – cancelled following my first arrest because Clayton’s health visitor, Evelyn had seen through the police bullshit and having seen for herself that Clayton was happy, well and positively thriving, she had refused to have anything more to do with the ‘stitch up’ taking place.

To which Miles answered that I was wrong and the reason that the assessment had been cancelled was because she could not get a policeman to accompany her on a visit (see attachment 5a).

Now I feel sure Ms Vandenbroucke, that I do not need to tell you of the grave implications for the social services had there been any truth in Miles’s claim. Indeed, the implication is that child abusers are given carte blanche to carry on harming their children if a social worker cannot get a police escort to visit those that they are nervous around.

I therefore immediately reminded Miles that she was being filmed, leaving her little option but to include the lie in the assessment – an assessment incidentally that we had neither been asked if we agreed to participating in or even informed that an assessment was taking place for that matter, but which Miles once again acted upon without any degree of integrity by answering “yes, we had agreed. (see attachment 8)



Moreover, the assessment was submitted as being complete with the answer to the question asking if the assessment had been discussed with us being left blank (attachment 9). Or at least the question has not been answered in our copy.

Furthermore, in the same attachment the question asking what date we were given a copy of the assessment has also been left blank.  Or at least the question has not been answered in our copy.



The obvious reason for those omissions is because Miles had prematurely started the assessment, on a date when she shouldn’t in reality have known anything about my imminent arrest.

And that premature start meant that Miles had to hand the assessment in 5 days earlier that what she would have had to do had she been on the level – because of the law on the length of time governing the number of days allowed for completing an assessment.

Course, if she had made an innocent mistake with the date, then she could simply have altered it and put her signature next to the correction… Moreover, there would then have been no need for the despicable, underhand deception that was to come later.

At this point, both Miles and her manager Robinson were very well aware that I am nobody’s fool, so with logic dictating that the police referral was unlawfully passed to Miles on the 1st of October, only for her to be told not to visit us until after the 3rd of October due to some cock up or other – at which time I would imagine that the police had hoped to have me under arrest, only for Miles to again be told to abort arranging a visit because the arrest had not gone ahead – and as such both Miles & Robinson had to keep up the pretence of the assessment still being active in the hope that I would not notice that the assessment had been started 5 days before they should have even received the police referral.

Indeed, had everything been above board you only have to ask yourself why the police did not adhere to the law by applying for a search and arrest warrant, which can be issued in as little as 6 hours.

And it is because of that skullduggery which was undoubtedly taking place that the date given by Miles as the day the assessment was due to end, found at the very start of the forms is correctly stated as being the 20th of November 2014 (see attachment 10) – thus again proving that the start date given as the 1st of October was not just an unforgivable mistake, but something far more sinister in the form of collusion with the police to get Clayton put into care in order to:

  1. Teach me a lesson, and
  2.  To stop me exposing and writing about high level corruption and paedophillia.



Further proof of the two social workers deliberately acting corruptly and with an ulterior motive, in regard to that fraudulent start date is evidenced by Robinson arranging an appointment with us for the 26th of November, which she had told Stacey had to be held on that day because that was the due date for the assessment to completed.

Yet even as she arranged that appointment, Robinson knew full well that the assessment had already been submitted as finished which she cannot deny being as she was the person who signed it off on the 20th (see attachment 11).



Robinson further told Stacey that the purpose of our meeting was to discuss the outcome of a strategy meeting with the police due to be held on the 24th of November – again knowing full well that the meeting was pointless since the assessment had already been submitted on the 20th.

And at our VERY SHORT meeting on the 26th, rather than discuss the assessment with us, Miles stated – on camera – that she would leave the assessment with us so as we could look at our leisure.

However, I believe that this was a deliberate tactic done in order to stop me noticing that the assessment had been submitted on the 20th of November thus avoiding me being able to confront the pair of liars on camera.

In the event, Stacey tried to telephone both Miles and Robinson repeatedly throughout the day on Friday the 28th of November, after I had picked up on the subterfuge on the evening of the 27th.

When Stacey finally did manage to get hold of Miles on the phone with a view to taking her to task over the atrocious, corrupt assessment containing many, many EXTREMELY serious inaccuracies, the recording of that phone call is toe-curlingly embarrassing in the extreme as Miles “um’s” and “ah’s” and stutters as she tries unsuccessfully to lie her way out of her criminal acts.

You can hear the recording of that extremely embarrassing phone call – that is to say embarrassing for Miles – at the same link as the videos.

That phone call later led to one of the most unprofessional, poorly constructed, vague in content, addendums that you are ever likely to see from a so called professional.

After all, you cannot justify the unjustifiable. I will however discuss the addendum at a later date as there is already more than enough evidence for you to get through.

Now, returning to those blatant lies that so easily tripped off Miles’s tongue at that first meeting on the 8th of October and it should be noted that despite the major spanner in the works in regard to Miles claim at not being able to get a police escort, the fact that she has had to include her lie in the assessment, nevertheless gives the reader i.e A judge, the impression that I am a dangerous, violent individual making it far too risky for any social worker to attend my property.

Course, by doing so she makes the fact that the assessment was “cancelled” or never even went ahead, even more ludicrous.

The second lie that Miles so easily let trip off her tongue (what a difference a month and a half made in her ability to lie) which again is fully caught on camera, was her answer to my asking her: Why, if there was any substance to the police allegations was I not given any bail conditions and why was I allowed to return home to where Clayton was living 48 hours before Miles finally came round for that first visit following the 2nd arrest?

Miles explanation – caught on camera remember – was that I had not been given any bail conditions because “I had not been charged”, which was a breathtakingly arrogant thing for her to say when you consider that I was still on bail for the misdemeanour, for which I was illegally arrested on the 30th of July.

You see, despite that allegation being considerably less serious than the allegation of my second arrest, the first arrest has 4 bail conditions attached to it – despite me not having been charged at the time – thus making a mockery of Miles’s claim.

It was at this point that I asked – on camera – if Miles actually knew what the photographs forming the basis of her assessment actually consisted of.

After all, there is a mile of difference between someone who has been caught with 1000 grade 4 and 5 child porn photos on their computer and someone who has been caught with half a dozen grade 1 and 2 child porn photos on their computer. And then there is a big difference again between say a school teacher caught with half a dozen grade 1 and 2 photos on his computer and someone who exposes child porn for a living caught with Led Zeppelin album covers on his computer.

My question forced Miles to admit that she had no idea of what the photos involved – not even the severity – which given that she had just had 7 days sat twiddling her thumbs whilst she waited for the police to get their act together absolutely beggars belief and I seriously question how you say that the woman is fit to practice when she is compiling an extremely important document without the foggiest idea of what is involved.

Once again Ms Vandenbroucke, I will remind you that we are talking about a child’s future, not someones suitability to care for a hamster.

And it gets worse, very much worse in fact.

You see, despite the C & F assessment being carried out from start to finish under Section 17: a child in need that corrupt, vile woman, who is the epitome of everything that a social worker shouldn’t be has compiled the assessment under Section 47: Protection order (see attachment 12) and I feel sure that I do not need to point out the huge difference between the two.



You will notice the clever wording which implies that the assessment was raised to a Section 47, but when you read it properly you will quickly realise that arranging a meeting does not constitute a change of status to the assessment.

Yet where the form asks: “Is the assessment taking place as part of a Section 47 investigation”, Miles deliberately lies by answeringYes”.

And that was never ever the case.

You see, the conniving harridans seized upon a chance to escalate the assessment when at one point in their ‘investigation’ – and I use the word ‘investigation’ extremely loosely –  Stacey became unwell because of the extreme pressure and worry placed on her by the corrupt Miles & Robinson at a visit to ours earlier on in the day.

She was therefore taken as a precaution up to A&E by her boyfriend – whose name Miles has got hopelessly wrong in the assessment and if she cannot process the most basic of facts correctly then the woman is most definitely not fit to practice.

Robinson, every bit as corrupt as Miles and working in collusion with the police, claims that she read about Stacey going to hospital via my website, thus proving that they were actively looking for a reason to remove Clayton.

This news prompted Robinson to arrange a strategy meeting with the police with a view to raising the assessment from a Section 17 to a Section 47:  Protection order – on the basis that Clayton had been left in my sole care whilst Stacey was at hospital.

Robinson further justified her actions by stating that with Stacy in hospital they (the SS) had no idea what was happening with her, i.e was she being kept in hospital, was she seriously ill etc, etc.

However, in her quest to make a mountain out of a molehill, Robinson showed a sick disregard for the evidenced facts such as Stacey had been at college two to three days a week ever since Clayton’s birth leaving me in sole charge of his care – without any harm coming to him whatsoever .

She also failed to take into account the fact that I have five children and had brought Stacey up on my own since she was 6 months old along with the fact that over the past 19 years, there have been many, many children stay overnight at our home – both boys and girls, from the age of 4 up to 19 – with never so much as a hint of improper behaviour made towards any off them.

Robinson also ignores the fact that Clayton’s health visitor – the one mentioned earlier – signed Stacey off from home visits earlier than she would do with young mothers of her age, specifically because she could see that Stacey had my support.

Moreover, Robinson neglects to mention the fact that there was no agreement between us and them that Clayton wouldn’t be left in my sole care.

And most low-down & snide of all is the fact that Robinson seized upon the information relating to Stacey attending hospital but chose to totally ignore the update, posted 24 hours later stating that Stacey was fine and had been back at home within one and a half hours of attending the hospital.

In the event, both Robinson and Miles attended the strategy meeting with the police on the 21st of October with the view to continue their quest to raise the Section 17 to a Section 47.

However, the police – who without a doubt are trying to get to me – vetoed the raising of the assessment to a section 47 on the specific, documented grounds that:“Clayton was not deemed to be at risk of or suffering significant harm”. (see attachment 14)



And therein lies the indisputable truth that the assessment was never raised to a Section 47, despite Miles fraudulently stating otherwise on the assessment sheet.

Yet even if the assessment had been raised to a Section 47, the very fact that Miles does not mention ANYWHERE that the assessment was lowered again – as they later tried to claim was the case – giving the reader the impression that the whole assessment was carried out as a Section 47 protection order which is nothing short of a conspiracy to kidnap a child… Or does submitting a Section 17 report under the guise of a Section 47 report – a fact that is absolutely irrefutable – not count as child kidnapping?

Indeed, the pair want reporting to the police because you know as well as I do that had I not been so clued up and wise to their evil scheme, Clayton would not now be in our custody… And I will not let this matter drop and neither will my readers.

How would you feel about their fitness to practice if this had been your child or grandchild Ms Vandenbroucke?

The proof of their evil agenda is there in plain sight and even if it wasn’t, I do in fact have Julie Robinson on video tape categorically stating in the presence of a senior, registered Social Worker; that the police had told her not to raise the case from a Section 17, meaning that the assessment was NEVER A SECTION 47, so why are the scheming  baby snatchers presenting the assessment as being such?

And since that fact alone made Clayton being removed from a loving stable home a very real prospect, I believe that both Miles and Robinson should be up on criminal charges.

I should also point out that the social worker present at that meeting – who is a friend of mine – made the 600 mile round trip from Blackpool in order to make sure that neither Miles nor Robinson broke any rules. Yet neither Robinson nor Miles asked to see her I.D, which she had to hand in readiness and indeed, she was extremely surprised that identification was not so much as touched upon.

In fact Miles paid so little attention to her, that she could not even get her name correct in the assessment or state with any degree of certainty whether this lovely lady is in fact a registered Social Worker. (See attachment 15)



Course, the fact that Miles knew that the assessment had not been raised to a Section 47 did not stop her obtaining Stacey’s medical records, by fraudulently using Section 47, as an opportunity to do so since a Section 47 gives social workers the power to access a person’s medical records without needing their permission.

You see, Stacey had categorically refused permission for Miles to access her medical records, which a Section 17 doesn’t allow a social worker to do without consent. I therefore presume that she thought that we were hiding something that could be used against us.



Course, being a compulsive liar herself, Miles would assume that everybody is the the same, which is not the case and as such Miles committed a criminal act for nothing.

Yet despite the police who were heading the investigation having deemed me as being no risk to Clayton, it beggars belief that Robinson, having been told that fact in person, signed the assessment off by saying: “it is unknown what risk Chris poses to Clayton”. (attachment 17)



Moreover, despite Miles also knowing full well  that the police deemed me no danger to Clayton which PREVENTED them from raising the Section 17 assessment to a Section 47, she clearly labels me as being a danger to Clayton towards the end of the assessment (see attachment 18), despite there being no detrimental change in circumstances or “further developments” since the time of my 2nd arrest on the 6th of October.

And I would therefore be very interested to know how she can justify such malicious libel?


10818864_749799728427309_688472646_n1 (1)

Indeed, I feel that I have to say Ms Vandenbroucke that the very fact that you state in your reply that:The information gathered does not provide any credible evidence to suggest that the assessment conducted raises fitness to practise concerns about the Registrants or that their fitness to practise is currently impaired”; is of grave concern to myself and those who complained on my behalf.

After all, you were pointed in the right direction for ALL of the above information, and as such I find your verdict absolutely astounding, unprofessional and indeed it all smacks of a cover up.

However, since colluding with the police with a view to stealing a baby from a loving stable background, by means of fraud, deceit and deception apparently does not raise any concerns in regard to a social worker’s fitness to practice,  I would be grateful if you could provide me with a copy of your HCPC policy setting out exactly what does qualify as wrongdoing where social workers are concerned and I do indeed wonder exactly what do they have to do in order to be found unfit to practice.

Finally, I should just make you aware that I have a lot more evidence of malpractice involving Miles & Robinson, of which I feel absolutely positive that the general public would most certainly deem as wrongdoing by a social worker – should you require anymore information.

However, for now I will leave you with my official complaint which is as follows:


That Social worker Nicole Miles and her manager Julie Robinson, having completed a C & F Assessment on Clayton Christopher Spivey (D.O.B03/06/2013 Case Number 112352860) did on the 20th of November 2014, submit the incomplete, said assessment for potential presentation in a court of law, having knowingly entered, misleading, confusing, inaccurate and deliberately false information in collusion with Serving Officers of the Essex Police Force, in order to maliciously facilitate the removal of Clayton Christopher spivey from his home in Rochford, Essex where he currently resides with his Mother: Stacey Hannah Spivey and his Grandfather: Christopher David Spivey.


That the Social Worker Nicole Miles (aided to a much lesser degree by Social Workers Lorraine Pennington and Sarah McCormack), did with the full backing and cooperation of her departmental manager, Julie Robinson a registered social worker:

  • begin a  assessment on Clayton 6 days prior to the unlawful arrest of Christopher Spivey, and in doing so failed to follow standard procedure and times set out by the British Government.
  • Neglected to gather and/or verify crucial information essential to compiling the assessment in an accurate and fair way.
  • Failed to double check names, leading to three of those people crucial to the investigation being allocated names vastly different to their proper names.
  • Failed to double check dates, leading to dates stated as fact being incorrect.
  • Inexplicably began carrying out checks with a view to commencing an assessment two days before receiving an actual referral and continuing checks well passed the initial 7 day period given before an investigation is either closed or a core assessment is commenced.
  • Deliberately worded the assessment in such a way as to leave the information open to misinterpretation.
  • Blatantly lied to/and attempted to manipulate both Clayton’s Mother & Grandfather on numerous occasions in an effort to make Clayton’s removal easier.
  • Submitted an incomplete report (at least the mothers copy is) having failed to follow standard and required procedure.
  • Presented the assessment carried out under Section 17  as being carried out under Section 47 in order to illegally access personal data and in order to make the risk to Clayton appear substantially more  than it was, despite Police Officers from Essex Police informing both Miles & Robinson that there was NO RISK.
  • Deliberately Marked Clayton’s Grandfather down as being a SIGNIFICANT & LIKELY RISK to Clayton, despite ALL THE EVIDENCE AND POLICE INFORMATION CLEARLY POINTING TO THAT NOT BEING THE CASE.

I look forward to your prompt response on this matter.

Christopher Spivey.