(UNEDITED AT MOMENT)
Ahead of Thursday’s sentencing, here are THE TRUE FACTS of what has really taken place since July 30th 2014, ALL OF WHICH CAN BE EVIDENCED. Please share this report far and wide because next time it could be you caught up in a nightmare from where there appears to be no escape.
(1) I was illegally arrested at 1:30 AM on the 30th of July 2014 for “Suspicion of harassment” by four very aggressive police officers. The four thugs, despite knowing that my then 1 year old grandson was in the property illegally entered and began an illegal search, ending with them illegally seizing my computers, a mobile phone, a keyboard and mouse, and a DVD writer. I was then illegally detained for a total of 19 hours. Therefore, there should never have been a court case and disregarding that fact, the evidence should have been deemed inadmissible.
(2) The facts listed in number 1 are evidenced thus:
- A complaint was made, allegedly to Greater Manchester Police on the 16th of July 2014 by Witness A
- An arrest request was then made, allegedly by the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to Essex Police on the 17th of July 2014
- In the two weeks that followed the GMP request on 17/7/14 and my actual arrest on 30/7/14, Essex Police did not bother to apply for an arrest or search warrant despite being able to obtain both in around 6 hours.
- Instead, they came mob handed specifically to arrest me (as evidenced in the police witness statements) at a time which violates CODE B of PACE, following a briefing sometime between 11:30PM on the 29th of July 2014 and 1 AM on the 30th of July 2014, where my photo and description was handed out.
- When I refused to let them in because they had no warrants, one of them illegally used Section 32 of PACE to arrest me whilst the other three barged past me into my home.
- Not only was the policeman abusing Section 32, he was also using it illegally as Section 32 of PACE only allows for a search of an arrested person’s home and seizure of their property if the offence that they are arrested for is and INDICTABLE offence. “Suspicion of harassment” is a SUMMARY offence.
- Neither myself or my daughter Stacey were allowed to supervise the search, despite it being our right to do so.
- I told Stacey to film the police officers at which point one of them told her that if she did they would also take her phone with them when they left – violating Stacey’s right to do so.
- After spending around half an hour finger tip searching my daughter’s bedroom where my then 1 year old grandson was sleeping, 3 of the officers went to search my living room whilst myself and Stacey were held prisoner by the 4th officer, in Stacey’s bedroom.
- The three officers spent over one and a half hours in my 16ft X 14 ft living room but missed a laptop computer, a computer hard drive and various memory sticks, none of which were hidden. The police have never told me what they were doing in there for 90 minutes, but they certainly could not have been searching.
- Knowing that I was going to be taken, Stacey had phoned two friends up to come and sit with her. The police would not let them in until they both provided their names, addresses and DOB’s.
- After completing the 90 minutes in the living room none of the officers bothered to search my bedroom, the bathroom, the kitchen or the walk-in hallway cupboard.
- A police car was then brought into the spacious car park outside of my flat block, from where it had been parked out of sight way up the road and the computers were loaded into the back in what appeared to be unsealed bags.
- I was then taken to a car parked way up the road and taken to Southend Central at approximately 4:30AM
- I was not interviewed until around lunch time and the 60-90 minute interview was conducted by CID despite the offence only being a summary offence, normally dealt with by a PC.
- I was then locked up again until around 6PM whereby I was released on bail with CONDITIONS.
- Before I left the station I lodged a complaint about my arrest, the search & seizure and the four aggressive officers.
(3) On the 30th of July 2014 – whilst I was still in custody – the social worker Nicole Miles began an assessment report on my grandson Clayton, based on a malicious referral (later proven so) made by the police following my arrest. I believe that the police had hoped to find drugs or something else illegal in Stacey’s bedroom – hence the fingertip search – in order to allow them to get the social services involved. When they found nothing, they resorted to fabricating reasons to make a referral.
(4) Despite starting the assessment on the 30th of July 2014, Nicole Miles did not receive the police referral until TWO DAYS LATER on the 1st of August. This begs the question as to how did she know to begin the assessment on the 30th of July, on matters that were nothing to do with the SS yet seemingly important enough for Nicole Miles to inexplicably start her investigation before I had even been released from custody.
(5) When Nicole Miles came to visit I refused to cooperate on the basis that the reasons given in the police refusal were malicious and the offence of “suspicion of harassment” is not a matter of concern for the social services. Miles left but then tried co-opting the help of Clayton’s health visitor. Unfortunately for Miles I get on extremely well with Clayton’s health visitor who has been around our home on numerous occasions, never once having any concerns about our living conditions. I do however believe that she quickly saw through the insidious nature of the referral and SS involvement and refused to have anything to do with it. The assessment was therefore terminated.
(6) I was subsequently told, no less than 5 (FIVE) times in writing by Essex Police, Detective Chief Inspector, Paul Ahmed (the person tasked with investigating my easily evidenced complaint) that my complaint COULD NOT be investigated until the investigation was completed and any court action dispensed with. This then is a case of a very senior police officer investigating serious misconduct taking place within his own force. It should also be noted that had my extremely serious complaint been investigated it would immediately have put a stop to the police investigation and there would never have been a court case, let alone a conviction.
(7) I was once again illegally arrested and my property illegally searched on the afternoon of 6th of October 2014, by THREE plain-clothed police officers who categorically told me that they had only come to talk. Once again they had come WITHOUT arrest or search warrant after “illegal images” were allegedly found on my computers which had been illegally seized on the 30th of July 2014. However, the police had informed the Social Services that I had been arrested on the 1st of October, hence they once again started an assessment on my grandson Clayton on that day, which they could not in fact begin for another 5 days until after I had been arrested. The police then – once again – incorrectly informed the social services that I had been arrested on the 3rd of October, three days before the event actually took place. This proves – for reasons previously documented and evidenced and briefly documented once again below – that the social services were working in cahoots with the police on a conspiracy to snatch my grandson Clayton.
(8) When I refused the three officers entry they used a battering ram to break down my front door as well as one of them kicking down my back gate and smashing my bedroom window. Again the police knew that my teenage daughter and infant grandson was on the premises. You need to ask yourself why it had taken the police 2 months to find these “illegal images” and why they blatantly came to arrest me without a search warrant and an arrest warrant both of which can be obtained within 6 (SIX) hours. Watch and listen to the video below and hear how terrified my daughter is. Try and imagine yourself being branded as a nonce… And then tell me how would you feel especially so, knowing that you are innocent.
(9) The paperwork for this illegal arrest states that I was [illegally] arrested under Section 17 of PACE. Section 17 of PACE can only be used under extreme circumstances such as somebody being in danger of serious personal harm. However, one of the three police officers is clearly seen & heard on the videotape above, stating that I had been arrested under Section 32 of PACE. Moreover, despite being handcuffed, the officer was too out of breath to read me my rights
(10) One of the officers then carried out a search which lasted no more than 5 minutes and consisted of a glance around my bedroom and the same around Stacey’s bedroom. He did not look in the walk-in hallway cupboard, the kitchen, the bathroom or the living room where i was being held. The hallway cupboard has around 30-50 photo albums in it, all of which could have contained photos of naked children for all that the officer knew. The living room contained THIS COMPUTER that I am writing on, as well as the laptop, memory sticks and hard drive that the 4 thug coppers missed on July 3oth. There are also over 1000 cased DVD’s in the living room, each case could have contained child porn, as well as 6 spools of recordable DVD’s which – for all that the coppers knew – could also all have contained child porn. There was also a digital movie camera in the drawer. Yet the copper never so much as gave the room a second glance and NOTHING at all was taken in evidence.
(11) Despite my front door having been battered down and unusable for 2 months (finally fixed in December 2014), my bedroom window smashed (and not fixed until December 2014) and my back gate being kicked down, the police wanted me to sign a declaration stating that they had caused NO DAMAGE
(12) I sincerely believe that had there not been so many witnesses to the 2nd arrest I would have been beaten up by the 3 thug coppers. This belief is based on the fact that I was later contacted and sent video evidence by someone who had been arrested by the same three officers, who – on film – subsequently attempted to strangle the man in the back of their unmarked police car causing evidenced bruising to his throat. Moreover, whilst the attacking police officer screamed: “I am going to fucking kill you” with his hands around the victim’s throat, the other two officers are seen blatantly trying to shield the assault from the person attempting to film it. You are best listening with headphones and the volume turned up.
(14) It has since come to light and is clearly evidenced that this 2nd [illegal] arrest, carried out on evidence blatantly planted by the police on my illegally seized computers, was not done to discredit me (hence the police refusal to say why I had been arrested when asked the reason by the press), but was done with the clear intent of furthering a joint conspiracy by the Essex Police and Castle Point District Council Social Services, to have my grandson taken into care as a means of shutting me up.
(15) This clearly evidenced conspiracy, tantamount to kidnapping my well looked after, thriving, bright, happy and very much loved grandson thus ruining my life, my daughter’s life and most importantly the life of my infant grandson began at the time of my 1st arrest on the 30th of July 2014 and the conspiracy must therefore have been hatched before I was even arrested.
Can you imagine how scared and confused he would have been had I not taken steps to thwart the SS stopping them taking him into care? Can you imagine the fate he faced as we all know what happens to children in care? Can you imagine how devastated my daughter would have been?
(16) The social worker, Nicole Miles and her boss Julie Robinson then arranged – behind our backs – a case management meeting with the police with a view to raising the assessment, supposedly being carried out under Section 17: A child in need to a Section 47: Protection order. This was because I had refused to let my daughter agree to them looking at her medical records. Because of this refusal, the social workers [wrongly] assumed that we had something to hide and FRAUDULENTLY using the guise of carrying out a Section 47 investigation (which allows the SS to view medical records without permission) they went ahead and accessed Stacey’s records – thus breaking the law on data protection, an offence which carries up to 7 years in prison.
(17) However, at the case management meeting with the police, being held with a view to raising the Section 17 assessment to a Section 47, the police vetoed the proposal stating that I was not a danger to Clayton.
(18) Despite the assessment NEVER being raised to a Section 47, Nicole Miles has indicated on the assessment that it had always been the case that the assessment was conducted under Section 47, thus had I not thwarted their efforts by catching on video, Miles & Robinson blatantly lying to me time & again, and the case had in fact reached court, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Clayton would have been taken into care.
(19) Because the police had made the referral to Miles & Robinson on the 1st of October 2014, the assessment – which was started on the very same day – had to end BY LAW on the 20th of November 2014. However, Miles began this 2nd assessment using the assessment report that had been started on the 30th of July (on a malicious referral by the police made on the 1st of August) and which she had subsequently and quite inexplicably kept for 2 months, despite the assessment being terminated, which strongly indicates that Miles MUST HAVE KNOWN that I was going to be arrested again sometime in the coming months.
(20) However, because I wasn’t arrested until the 6th of October, the social workers had to lead me and my daughter to believe that the assessment was started on the 6th of October. Bear in mind that you do not get to see the assessment until it is completed whereby the social worker goes through it with you on the day it is to be submitted. The fact that the assessment was started 5 days prematurely which the police and the SS were desperate that we should not find out about for obvious reasons, means that the strategy meeting between the 2 social workers and the police, arranged for the 24th (see 2nd photo above) was pointless because the assessment had already been submitted on the 20th.
(21) Miles and Robinson then arranged a [pointless]meeting with us for the 25th of November so as they could go through the assessment with us – despite unbeknownst to us at the time that the assessment had been submitted 5 days earlier. However, instead of going through the assessment, they just left a copy with us… Presumably because by then they were well aware that I was no mug and had they gone through the assessment with us they knew that I would immediately pick up on the many anomalies and blatant lies.
(22) When I came to read the assessment the following day, I did indeed quickly pick up on all of the above, plus other Blatant lies and the fact that the assessment was incomplete (at least our copy was). Worse still, of all the shameful lies contained within the error filled report, one of the worst was the fact that it was stated that I posed a future risk to Clayton – despite me not having been charged with anything and the police stating to Julie Robinson that I was no danger to my grandson, hence the assessment was never raised to a Section 47.
(23) What follows is a tape recording of Stacey speaking to Nicole Miles on the phone. Miles had desperately tried to avoid taking the phone calls knowing that they would be in connection to the many anomalies in her assessment of Clayton. And while it is obvious that Stacey had Miles in a fluster, with her only being 19 years old at the time thus naive to the evil way these harridans work, Stacey did not grasp the full impact of the assessment being completed on the 20th of November, whilst Miles and Robinson had kept up the pretence that the assessment had still been on-going five days after it had been completed and submitted. Nevertheless, you will notice how blustering Miles quickly changes the subject on that point. Moreover, although Stacey has my first arrest date wrong, stating that it was the 31st of July 2014, you will still hear Miles panicking as she tries to explain how the assessment was started on the 30th – yet the fact remains that it would have been impossible for Miles to do so – had there not been a conspiracy between her and the police – because the Social Services did not receive the police referral until the 1st of August.
(24) What follows is a video of the second phone call between Stacey and Miles where Stacey pulls her about the raising of the assessment to a Section 47. You will note that Miles tries to bluster that the assessment was raised to a Section 47 at the strategy meeting held with the police on the 21st of October (also scroll up to the relevant screen shot) at which the police did in fact veto the motion being – on the face of it – that they considered me no risk to Clayton (which they could state with confidence since they had been the ones who planted the photos on my computers) thus the assessment was NEVER raised to a Section 47 at any time – proving that Miles & Robinson broke the law by illegally accessing Stacey’s medical records.
Indeed, it is more likely that the police vetoed the raising of the assessment to a section 47 because by that time their case for the images had fallen apart – despite them wasting public money stretching the investigation out for a further 2 years.
(25) At the meeting held on the 25th of November 2014 between ourselves, Julie Robinson and Nicole Miles – instead of coming to discuss the assessment before it was submitted (which had already been submitted on the20th) – they brought along a woman called Jan Dakin.
At this meeting, Robinson said that we had to trust them, which I pointed towards Miles and said “how can we trust you when I have her on film blatantly lying to us on several occasions”?
Robinson – nodding her head – replied “we will have to talk about that errrrr” and nodded her head towards the garden, meaning that we would have to talk about it in private where I couldn’t record her… We never did.
(26) Instead of talking about the assessment – which was instead just left with us when they left – Robinson said that if Stacey would go to five, 1 hour sessions with Jan Dakin, then as far as she was concerned that would be the end of the SS involvement with us, no matter what the outcome of the police investigation was.
However, she said that the meetings were to be held away from our home, with only Stacy in attendance – in other words, somewhere where we couldn’t film and where I could not be there to protect Stacey whilst they stitched her up.
(27) Nevertheless, we agreed – after which I briefed Stacey thoroughly and provided her with a voice recorder with the instructions not to tell Dakin that she was recording unless she asked.
I should also point out that if a person is doing their job properly, honestly and with integrity then what possible reason could they have for not wanting to be recorded. After all, to do so would protect both sides.
Indeed, in my 20 years of being a Tattoo Artist, my customer’s companions have filmed me tattooing countless times with me never once denying a request to do so. Therefore, once you listen to the following recording of that first meeting between Stacey & Dankin, I feel sure that you will agree that we were right to record and we were right to suspect that there was an ulterior motive to the sessions.
(28) Stacey attended the next arranged meeting with Dankin, who had aborted the first meeting so as she could speak to her boss about Stacey recording; had Dankin actually done so then she certainly didn’t let on.
Instead she once again asked Stacey if she was recording to which Stacey confirmed that she was, after which Dankin again terminated the session. We then received the following letter saying that Stacey had completed the work – although she hadn’t actually even started it – and the case was now closed.
(29) The two Social Workers involved in the joint conspiracy with Essex police, to kidnap my grandson are now being investigated by their governing body, the HCPC for this very serious offence – although I strongly believe that the investigation is being whitewashed.
Interestingly enough, I received an email from the HCPC just the other day in response to my earlier inquiry as to why the two Social Worker’s, Nicole Miles & Julie Robinson had not been suspended whilst this very, very, serious complaint, backed by solid, indisputable evidence and made by myself and many, many other concerned members of the public was being investigated.
The HCPC’s response was that the complaint did not involve sexual misconduct or drug abuse on the social workers part.
Therefore, I can only assume that the HCPC do not view two of their social workers conspiring with the police to steal and ruin an innocent child’s life and illegally accessing DATA (punishable by up to 7 years in prison) serious enough to warrant the suspension of social workers on their register.
I should just point out for clarification in regard to that email (seen in the screenshot below), that my friend Mrs Marshall – a very experienced registered social worker – had made the long slog from Blackpool in order to sit in at a meeting between ourselves, Miles & Robinson to ensure that they did not try anything underhand.
(30) In December 2014, I was made aware by a practicing Barrister (not a member of my legal team) that Chief Inspector Paul Ahmed had been blatantly lying to me and my complaints – which would immediately have put a stop to both the police investigations into harassment and the illegal images – could indeed have gone ahead. The same Barrister also confirmed what I had already come to suspect, namely that all the big legal firms had been warned “from high up” not to defend my case.
Prior to my first court appearance in January 2015, I had written to over 30 law firms all of whom replied that they could not help me as they were ‘all to busy’.
(31) I therefore immediately wrote to Inspector Paul Ahmed, as well as The Independent Police Complaint Commission, The Essex Chief Constable, Stephen Kavanagh, The then Essex PCC, Nick Alston, and my MP James Duddridge, informing them that my complaint was deliberately not being investigated and that I now wanted Paul Ahmed’s conduct included in my complaint since not understanding the rules of complaint procedure is not a defence open to ANY police officer, as is clearly stated in the Police & complaints procedure handbook. I also quoted in my email to them, the applicable relevant sections set out in the police complaint guidelines handbook as well as those applicable by law. I then had the aforementioned barrister check the letter for accuracy before sending it on the 15th of December 2014. You can read that letter of complaint by clicking HERE
(32) The only reply to the letter sent by email was from the IPCC, who sent an automated acknowledgement that they had received the email
(33) On the 17th of December 2014, two days after I had sent that email, the Essex Chief of Police, Stephen Kavanagh took the highly unusual step of ordering a Postal Requisition Summons to be drawn up ordering me to court on January 20th 2015 for two counts of Harassment without Violence (1 committed against Witness A, 1 committed against Witness B) and two counts of sending a malicious communication (1 committed against Witness A, 1 committed against Witness B).
(34) There can be no doubt that instead of doing the right thing, this postal requisition summons was sent with malice and as the Essex Chief Constable, Stephen Kavanagh’s ‘fuck you’ for me having had the audacity to point out that Essex Police were deliberately not dealing with my very serious complaint.
Indeed, the very fact that the hastily drawn up summons was compiled two days after receiving my letter of complaint and more than a month before I was due to answer bail for the harassment charges is testament to the fact
(35) The 4 charges are all summary offences thus adding greater weight to the fact that I was illegally arrested on the 30th of July 2014 . Remember, Section 32 of PACE only allows for a search and seizure of property if the offence that a person has been arrested for is an indictable offence. Therefore, the prosecution action should have been halted at this juncture – if not earlier.
(36) A postal requisition is a court summons sent by post and I was not eligible to be summoned by this method because two of the conditions needed to qualify for a postal requisition were not met. Those conditions were (A) A person must be informed before being released from custody following their arrest, that they are eligible for summons via postal requisition.(B) That the person must have no bail conditions attached to his release.
(37) It should therefore be noted that I was not informed that I was eligible for a summons via postal requisition and I DID HAVE bail conditions attached to my release from custody – and as such I was NOT eligible for a postal requisition summons.
Indeed, the very fact that I was summoned this way means that I have NEVER been officially charged with the offences that I have now been convicted of.
(38) Judge Andrew or John Woollard (his name is a mystery that even the MSM cannot get to the bottom of) took it off his own bat – after obviously looking at my website – to ask the police officer in charge of the investigation, CID Detective Constable Adam Coombes, whilst he was on the stand under oath, if I had been summons via a postal requisition. When Coombes answered “yes”, the case should have been dismissed yet Judge Woollard made no further comment to Coombes affirmative.
(39) The prosecution case consisted of over 650 A4 photocopies of my articles and 5 witness statements (Two from Witness A, One from witness B, one from Witness C and one from Witness D yet the charges only apply to Witness A & Witness B). How can you determine where the specific offence is within 650 plus photocopied pages?
(40) To date, I have not been officially told what the specific crime was in those 650 pages.
PHOTO: The 650 page bundle
(41) Only one of the five witness statements – the one allegedly made by Witness A, which made up the original complaint of harassment, allegedly taken by the Greater Manchester Police; allegedly on the 16th of July 2014 – was made before my arrest on the 30th of July 2014.
(40) This means that I have NEVER been arrested or questioned for the two offences (1 count of harassment without violence, 1 count of sending a malicious communication) for which I have been convicted of, relating to Witness B, whose witness statement was not taken until the 3rd of August 2014 – Four days after I had been released from custody.
(41) All 5 witness statements are either not signed or have not had the signature witnessed or are signed in the wrong place or have not got the case number on or have not been signed underneath the last line of text where a statement ends half way down the page leaving the statement open to having more added to, and as such all 5 of the statements should all have been inadmissible – a fact that Judge woollard was made fully aware of but nevertheless ignored.
Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the police were not present when the statements were taken and that statements were re-written, which I cannot show you due to my bail conditions.
Nevertheless, the following are two examples taken from the statements. There is not one single page of the 20 odd pages that make up the statements that is correct and complete.
(42) In regard to the 650 plus photocopied pages of my articles that the Prosecution were also relying on as evidence, it is highly significant that I was NEVER ONCE asked to remove these articles in the year between my arrest and the case coming to trial. Therefore, logic dictates that either there was NO OFFENCE committed within those 650 plus pages or I was guilty of harassment every single day of the 365 days that the case took to come to court, yet I have never so much as once been arrested or questioned on this matter since 30th of July 2014.
(43) Judge Woollard was blatantly biased and hostile towards me from my very 1st appearance in court in January 2015.
It is indeed significant that I had a judge in charge of my case for the summary offences, obviously being heard in Magistrates court. On the 4 days immediately prior to my first appearance – for which I had not been able to secure legal representation – I had been extremely ill and confined to bed. However, when I attended court at 9:30 AM, the duty solicitor stated (without being told) that I was clearly unwell and that she would have a word with the judge and get me moved up to first on the list. Judge Woollard’s response to that request was to keep me waiting all day for my 5 minute plea hearing appearance and I did not in fact leave court until nearly 5 PM that day. Moreover, the same duty solicitor told me in front of 3 witnesses sat with me, that I would never be allowed to win this case.
(44) I stated to my friends who had come to court with me that day, that I would now have Judge Woollard at every appearance that I made – a fact that I was subsequently proved to be correct about. At various court appearances that I have made on these harassment charges, Judge Woollard has been seen by myself and others to roll his eyes and tut when talking about my point of view and defence of the case.
Indeed, I am totally without doubt in my mind that Judge Woollard was specifically selected to oversee my case with a mandate to find me guilty at all costs… As was the judge at the subsequent appeal (see HERE)
(45) Judge Woollard has a proven track record of finding people guilty who have highlighted government corruption, usually on some other flimsy, unrelated charge
(46) After thwarting the attempt by the police and SS to ruin our lives by taking Clayton into care, the planted “illegal images” tellingly disappeared, the charges relating to those illegal images dropped and tellingly, a Judge has since refused – in a court of law – to allow my legal team access to the police forensic reports on the computer hard-drives of my illegally seized computers – which would prove that the images were either planted or never even on my computers. The CPS have however unbelievably charged me with TWO images – ONE LEGAL and ONE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN AND HARDLY LIKELY TO SPARK PUBLIC OUTRAGE.
(47) In charging me with the two images, the CPS has gone against their OWN prosecution guidelines (they rarely prosecute for less than 20 images and never prosecute for less than 4), yet are still intent on taking me to CROWN COURT for possession of 2 (TWO) images. The first one is called “Klara and Edda belly dancing” which is by Nan Golding and owned by Sir Elton John and has TWICE been deemed LEGAL in a BRITISH COURT OF LAW (2001, 2007). The photo remains perfectly LEGAL today as proved by a quick Google search should you wish to do make one by typing the name of the image into your search bar.
(48) The proof that the photo is legal can be found in the BBC report found by clicking HERE, although following the year long investigation, the CID have been unable to find out what took me seconds to do. Interestingly enough the newspaper article found at that link states the following:
“Even if the photograph was now considered to be indecent, a defendant would be able to raise a legitimate defence, given that the photograph was distributed for the purposes of display in a contemporary art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation.”
(49) Klara & Edda belly dancing is a disgusting photo that I censored (although I was under no obligation to do so) and used in a couple of articles. I used it to highlight child abuse and the kind of perverts who own this type of disturbing “art”.
That fact is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to anyone who reads my articles.
However, in 2013 (a year before my first arrest) a Detective Chief Inspector, Gary Biddle contacted me via post about this and other photos, asking to meet me due to the possibility that the photos may be illegal images.
He did so by letter (see photo below) – which also clearly states that he understood why I had used the images – after twice coming to my door to talk about them.
(50) I did not respond to the letter on the basis that if the images were illegal then the police would send someone round to tell me to take them down. If however they were legal – as I knew that they were – then there was nothing to talk about.
Nevertheless, it is a bit sinister that a DCI would want to meet me to discuss the matter, although in the event I never heard from Biddle again – hence the photos MUST have been legal.
(51) The CPS and Prosecution know about this letter and have now even found their own copy. I know this for a fact because the prosecution have got to – by law – disclose the evidence that they are going to rely on in court as well as the evidence THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO USE.
However, it was little surprise to me that the prosecution did not intend to bring this letter up in court.
(52) The 2nd image is deemed as being mild “beastiality” and I have never been arrested or questioned about the image.
Indeed this image – which makes up Count 2 of the indictment – relates to an easy provable photoshopped snappy snap that the corrupt police took off my computer. However, it was the police who photoshopped the [originally] innocent photo into something that they classed as Extreme Pornography… Except even after doing so, it still failed in content to constitute a criminal offence.
Or put another way, the police fabricated evidence in order to try and convict me of an offence that I hadn’t committed.
Unfortunately, what the police didn’t allow for was the fact that the photo was actually a screenshot taken from a video that I still have in my possession, although they did not know that until I finally saw the photo in May 2016.
Now the thing is, when I was questioned on October 6th 2014 following my 2nd illegal arrest for what amounted to 70 images, mostly of Child Pornography that I had never before seen in my life and which were without a doubt planted on my illegally seized computers on the 30th of July 2014 – hence the social workers were so quick off the mark to act on the malicious police referral in the knowledge that I was going to be arrested at a later date for child porn, most likely on October the 1st thus giving them grounds to take my grandson Clayton into care and as such, was also the reason that they kept the original assessment form – the image making up Count 2 was not so much as mentioned, let alone shown to me in that interview.
Course, it wouldn’t have been because the photo in its original form is innocent and at that stage the police did not need to alter anything because of they were relying on the planted images.
More bizarre still, on the 20th of May 2016 – the eve of the trial – I published an article severely criticising those involved in the criminal act of prosecuting me and published a SCREENSHOT OF A GOOGLE SEARCH of the Goldin image that I had just made which brought up 6 or 9 thumbnail pictures of the image without me having to even go into Google images to look in order to show that the image was freely available.
However, what would have been hilarious had it not been so fucking serious was the fact that when I arrived at Basildon Crown Court on the 21st of May – the next day – I was informed that the trial had been cancelled whilst a police investigation was launched into me now DISTRIBUTING a “Class C image of a child”.
Course, why the trial had to be postponed being as this bizarre investigation should have been treated as a new criminal offence – stop laughing – is anyone’s guess.
It was also at this postponed trial that I finally got to see the photoshopped image making up Count 2, shortly after which they learned that I was accusing them of fabricating evidence, that I could prove this and better still requesting the image so as I could provide the photos that they had used to embellish the photo… Which they refused to do.
Meantime, the most bizarre police investigation bar none, into distributing a Google Screenshot got underway and thankfully, instead of sending 4 thugs around in the middle of the night to steal my property or 3 thugs in the middle of the afternoon to batter my front door down, the investigating officer contacted my solicitor to invite me to attend Rayleigh Police Station for a voluntary interview… Which I declined as the invitation was voluntary and I wanted no part of the madness.
Course, I suppose that it would have been pointless employing the heavy handed illegal tactics since my daughter and grandson were no longer living with me – thus no one there to scare to death – having been given a house as a priority because of the danger that the libellous, deliberate lies told about me in the MSM had put them in by living with me, along with the fact that the police – who were blatantly harassing me at the time – meant that she was living on her nerves.
However, my decline of the invitation resulted in the investigating officer repeating the offer to attend a voluntary interview with the added incentive of should I not accept, then he would send some thugs to come and get me – and indeed he still sent them round anyway, although I was out when they came.
Nevertheless, the invite was clearly not voluntary and as such I attended with my solicitor who drafted a statement which he then read out in the interview, after which I gave 5 minutes worth of “no comment” answers to the copper’s questions.
At no time was I arrested and I was told that I was free to leave at anytime although from recent experience, I didn’t really believe him.
Now the statement read out by my solicitor – amongst other things – gave details of who to contact at the Greater Manchester Police to verify that not only was the Goldin Image legal, but the image I was being questioned about was in fact a Google screenshot, of images deemed legal by the CPS, along with where to find that information, and pointing out that I was there under duress and that I was being harassed by the police.
Therefore, I was a bit surprise to be given yet another postal requisition to attend a court hearing for the crime of DISTRIBUTING A CLASS C INDECENT IMAGE OF A CHILD – which then went to make up Count 3 of the indictment.
I then came across something that finally changed the course of this madness, namely the case of Regina V Neal.
Neal had been convicted on 5 counts of possessing Class C indecent images of a child, which were photos used in some Art books that he had bought at legitimate, high street book shops.
However, at Neal’s appeal the sitting judge was scathing in his criticism of the CPS for even mounting the prosecution being that it was unfair to test the legality of the photos in court by prosecuting someone who had purchased the books in good faith.
He then went on to say that the correct course of action would have been to prosecute the book sellers and publishers, before quashing Neals convictions.
And that is exactly the same as the Goldin Image, which is freely available to buy in the book: The Devils Playground.
Which brings me to the trial which was finally held in November 2016.
You see, the first part of the trial was to be made up of Legal Argument before the Jury was sworn in and to my absolute astonishment, based on the many, many other judges I have been up before over the past two years, the trial Judge – a woman – immediately laid in to the prosecutor about the blatant disregard and wastage of public funds used to prosecute me, whilst bringing up the case of Regina v Neal .
She then adjourned the trial for 15 minutes so as the red faced Prosecutor could go and speak to his superiors.
Fifteen minutes later, the Court was reconvened and as the Judge took her seat, the Prosecutor stood up and announced that the prosecution would be offering no evidence for Count 1, Count 2 and Count 3. The Judge nodded and ordered it into the record that I had been found NOT GUILTY on ALL Charges.
She then proceeded to do some summing up in which it became obvious that she knew much more about me than just what was within the scope of the trial by stating that:
‘Mr Spivey may well be a pain in the backside but he is entitled to free speech and just because you don’t like what he says that is not a reason to try and shut him up by charging him with criminal offences’.
In doing so, the judge has now – be it inadvertently or otherwise – attested to the fact that the prosecution was malicious – a criminal act on the part of the Essex Police and the CPS.
(53) On July 1st 2015 (if memory serves, but it may have been the 4th), four weeks before the start of the trial for harassment, a case management hearing was held in which myself and my supporters were sent [deliberately] to the wrong court (Chelmsford Magistrates).
Now although I was certain that Chelmsford was to be the venue, a trusted friend had double checked on the day prior to this court appearance that the case was being heard in Chelmsford. However, when myself and supporters arrived at Chelmsford Magistrates (a good 30-45 minute drive from my home) at 9.30AM, we were told that the case was in fact being heard at Southend Magistrates court (a mere 10 minute drive from my home).
Nevertheless, I was still able to make the hearing at Southend Magistrates despite being half an hour late.
(54) At a further case management hearing held on the 10th of July 2014, the Prosecution led by one of the most senior prosecutors in the country, Tony Abel – who just so happens to also be a part time high court judge – asked Judge Woollard to rule that his four witnesses should not have to testify in person and that their witness statements should suffice (known as hearsay evidence), a motion that my woefully inadequate barrister opposed on the grounds that (A) it is my right in law under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act to face my accusers in court and (B) a witness statement cannot be cross examined in court and as such it would be impossible for me to get a fair trial without the witnesses appearing in person.
(56) ALL of the witness statements were littered with blatant, easily provable lies and had the witnesses been made to take the stand, they would ALL have committed easily provable perjury – a crime punishable by a term in prison.
(57) I CAN prove that at least 2 of the 4 witnesses are at best dishonest, liars, verging on criminal – a fact which came out in the subsequent appeal which Judge Morgan conveniently chose to ignore.
Unfortunately I cannot show you this evidence because of the draconian restraining order placed on me by Judge Woolard.
However, having successfully proved – with produced evidence – at my appeal, that two of the witnesses had deliberately lied in their police witness statements (thus they committed perjury at the appeal), the witness testimony of the other two witnesses should then have been deemed as ‘unsafe’ being as they must have known that the other two witnesses had indeed deliberately lied whilst giving their statements to support theirs… Another fact that Judge Christopher Morgan chose to ignore.
(58) However, at the original trial, Judge Woollard sided with the prosecution and ruled that the witnesses did not have to appear, breaching my Human Rights under Article 6, and meaning that the witness statements, despite them all being littered with easily provable lies would now stand as FACT, thus denying me any chance of a fair trial.
(59) That ruling meant that I now faced the prospect of a trial which should never have been allowed to go ahead due to the many breaches in the rule of law, for four misdemeanor offences, to be presided over by a blatantly biased judge as opposed to three magistrates, without even so much as the flimsy safety net of a jury, prosecuted by one of the most senior barristers in the country; more used to dealing with serious organised crime and who also sits as a judge, all based on Witness Statements made up of blatant lies which was by now accepted as being fact, made by 4 people of whom (A) there is strong evidence to cast doubt that they are who they are claiming to be (B) There is strong evidence to suggest that 3 of the 4 are involved in criminal activities
(60) Following that ruling, my woeful legal representation – whom I now suspected had been ordered to deliberately sabotage my case, based on too many facts to list – immediately began preparing to submit a judicial review with a view to having Judge Woollard’s disgusting ruling on the witness non-attendance overturned on the grounds stated above i.e my human rights had been breached under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, it was now impossible for me to get a fair trial along with another important point of law, namely what is called “an inequality of arms” – in other words, the prosecution had the creme de la creme of barristers whilst my legal firm had not even been granted funding for legal counsel based on the fact that the charges were summary offences.
(61) A further hearing was held on the 17th of July 2014 which neither myself or my legal team were informed about. To date I have not been informed what went on at the hearing.
(62) On the morning of the 30th of July 2015 – the first day of my trial – my barrister, Mohammed Bashir told me before we had even entered court that although he “would do his best, I would still be found guilty”.
(63) The first 40 minutes of the trial was taken up with Mohammed Bashir arguing that I could not possibly be given a fair trial and that the judge should adjourn the trial until the judicial revue in regard to the witnesses having to appear, had been heard. Indeed, my then solicitor, Tasmin Malcolm (who I apportion no blame to and had by the time of the trial left my solicitors practice) had previously tried to get a postponement when she had applied for the judicial review, only for her application to be somewhat mysteriously turned down.
(64) Judge Woollard also refused to adjourn the trial on the very flimsy grounds that I might not be granted legal aid to fight the appeal (judicial review) despite Mohammed Bashir categorically stating that he would be representing me in the appeal even if legal aid funding was denied. He also said that he had asked time and again for a good reason that the witnesses should appear but got none. Now that maybe true but that was the fault of my barristers.
Indeed, I even asked my solicitor to intervene when the [deliberately?] clueless barrister was fucking my case up. However, it was not for me to provide a good reason that the witnesses should appear, it was for Judge Woollard to have a good reason that they shouldn’t.
(65) Mohammed Bashir absolutely destroyed the one and only witness present at the original trial, Detective Constable Adam Coombes in regard to the unlawful way that the investigation had been carried out. Judge Woollard simply took no notice of the admissions that Coombes was forced to admit. These included:
- All video’s, pictures, comments, etc were all taken from the mainstream media or were in the public domain.
- I had not encouraged or incited anybody to commit any criminal activity.
- That Witness C had contacted me first.
- Agree that the witnesses did not have to go on my website
- He was forced to admit that he didn’t know why they did.
- Admit that the witnesses or anybody else including the police had never asked me to remove anything.
- Admit that the witnesses could have got an injunction ordering me to take the offending posts down, but they didn’t.
- When asked why it took the witnesses over a year to complain, he answered “I don’t know”.
- When asked why it took the police two weeks to arrest me following the complaint he again answered “I don’t know”
- He was forced to admit that I was arrested without search or arrest warrant.
- When asked why the police had violated Code B of Pace and arrested me at an unacceptable hour, he was again forced to answer “I don’t know”.
- He was asked if there had been any assault, or violence, or harassment to the witnesses since my arrest to which he admitted that there hadn’t been… Hence the witnesses claim to me causing them alarm and distress was unfounded.
- When asked if he had checked if there were other websites making the same claims as me he admitted he hadn’t. There are in fact tens of thousands all claiming the same as me.
(66) Despite myself never being served with the precise evidence that the prosecution were going to rely on in court, taken from the 650 plus pages of articles photocopied from my website, which I had never been ordered to remove, it quickly became obvious that the prosecution evidence spanned a period from the 23rd of May 2013 to the 11th of November 2014. This is very significant for many reasons:
- Firstly, a complaint of harassment should be made within 6 months of the act. Therefore anything relating to a period before January 2014 should have been inadmissible.
- Moreover, since the one and only time that I have been arrested and questioned in regard to this case was the 30th of July 2014, there should have been no evidence used against me in this case that pertained to any date thereafter – including the two charges against me relating to Witness B which were catalogued by the police on the 3rd of August 2014. The prosecution bundle shows that evidence was still being added on the 11th of January 2015 despite me being [illegally] summons on the 17 of December 2014.
- For the prosecution to prove harassment they have to show a course of conduct that the accused should have known constituted harassing somebody. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Witness A and Witness B (whom the 4 offences relate to) knew about this website on or before the 18th of July 2013, yet no complaint was ever lodged until the 16th of July 2014 – one year later. And even then, there was no warning from the police in that two week period between the complaint being logged on the 16th of July and my arrest on the 30th of July, that I was and had been pursuing a course of conduct that was tantamount to harassment – as is the normal police procedure to do so.
- Therefore, since no one contacted me or told me to stop in that period between the 18th of July 2013 and the complaint being logged on the 16th of July 2014 and then the period between the 16th of July and the 30th of July 2014 – how could I have possibly known that what I was doing was pursuing a course of conduct tantamount to harassment?
- The Malicious communication refers to ONE private message that I sent on Facebook on the 18th of July 2013 in which I asked very, very politely if the person would be prepared to talk to me in my capacity as a journalist. The message remained unanswered and I never made any attempt to contact the person again. Therefore, if that messaged was not logged by the police until nearly 13 months later, how could the message possibly be construed as a ‘malicious communication’?
- Indeed by the person’s own admission, they ignored my communication because the person thought that I was a “weirdo”, whilst making no mention that the Facebook message had caused distress or alarm.
- The Judge made it quite clear to the court that I was NOT a journalist. He deliberately did this so as I could not use the Journalist’s defence against charges of harassment that state that someone is not guilty of harassment when in pursuit of detecting or proving a crime. However, there can be no doubt whatsoever that I am indeed a journalist (see HERE) and that I was detecting and proving a crime
- The Malicious communications in regard to the other count was in the form of a mock-up photograph of the front page of the Sun newspaper which someone made and posted on my Facebook page linked to this website. I believe that I am right in saying the the spoof headline of the Sun front page went viral and appeared on hundreds if not thousands of people’s facebook pages. Indeed, at no time did Facebook deem the image obscene, offensive or likely to cause harassment. It should also be noted that I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the day to day running of my Facebook page (not to be confused with my personal Facebook account on which the spoof image did not appear). However, the fact that I did not remove that image from my Facebook page was subsequently deemed as a malicious communication by Judge Woollard.
- The second Malicious Communication in regard to count 2 came in the form of a Facebook page made by someone alleging a crime along with a YouTube account made by someone alleging the same crime as that of the Facebook page. Neither were anything whatsoever to do with me, but the fact that I added a screenshot of both in order to present a balanced view to the blatantly partisan view expressed by every national newspaper writing about the case, somehow constituted me being responsible for making those two accounts and me being the person alleging the crime, in Judge Woollard’s opinion – despite DC Adam Coombes stating whilst under oath that the accounts were absolutely nothing to do with me.
(67) Having typed into the Google search bar, questioning how many websites had referenced that aforementioned crime – which brought up 298,000 results (0.43 seconds) – it should be noted that I am the only person to have been convicted of referencing it despite the fact that I had clearly stated that ‘I didn’t know the answer’.
Indeed, I had only added the information for the sake of balance.
(68) It was alleged in witness statements that I had got hold of and used private photos in my articles yet I can – and subsequently did – prove that all of the images that I used were in the public domain.
It was also proven at the appeal that the photos in question had to have had their settings physically changed in order for them to be public… Another fact that both Judge Woolard and Judge Morgan chose to ignore.
(69) There is also the allegation that I published the addresses of the Witnesses. Again, it was proven in court that I had not published anything not already freely accessible to all… Unlike the Moron Gary Stewart who had broken the law… A fact which the police chose to ignore.
(70) Indeed I only published the name of the road in one instance which was done with the intention of proving that a crime was taking place and I did not publish the second address until after it had become the address of a registered company. Publishing the address of a registered company is not an offence. The reason that I published the address of this company was also in the pursuit of uncovering a crime, namely the company was posing as a charity and despite not being registered was receiving thousands of pounds in donations.
Once this evidence was released in an article, the Charity ceased fundraising. However, it should also be noted that I hold proof that the Daily Mail printed this address in full (including the house number) in 2013 – long before the premises became a registered business and which WAS a criminal offence. I also hold proof that the Daily Mail published the same address in full (including the house number) on the 30th of July 2015.
(71) There can be no doubt that the guilty verdict against me in this illegal court action was decided long before the end of the trial by the fact that Judge Woollard did not even go through the pretence of retiring to consider his verdict. Instead he launched straight into his 15 to 20 minute guilty verdict as soon as my defence counsel had finished summing up. The Judges speech was far too detailed to have been ‘off the cuff‘.
(72) Judge Woollard had made it clear that he was considering a custodial sentence when I return to Chelmsford Magistrates for sentencing on the 27th of August 2015, despite there being a run of blatant harassment cases in the MSM at the time with none of the harassers jailed despite some of them being found guilty in a Crown Court. Yet I have clearly not harassed anybody and still had the shadow of a prison sentence hanging over my head.
The following are but a few examples of the many cases of harassment far in excess of anything that I have done yet the perpetrators avoided prison. They are all from the same Source:
A 34 year old man was charged with harassment. He had no previous convictions. The police recorded stalking behaviour over a nine month period. Not all was proved in court but the evidence was extensive and included text messages, letters, requesting cosmetic surgery material be sent to the victim by mail order, attacks on the victim’s and the her family’s cars at home and at work places. The offender actually flew to another country to send letters to the victim to make her believe they came from her current partner. There was an arson attack on the home of the victim’s extended family whilst they were at home. The offender and victim were never actually in a relationship but the offender wanted to be. The victim was unaware of where the letters and texts were coming from for the first few months and the offender actually befriended her for some time. He received an eight week prison sentence suspended for 24 months with 12 months supervision and 200 hours unpaid work. He has not participated in any programmes. The man was described as high level of risk at MAPPA, was difficult to work with and had narcissistic and psychopathic traits. The court report author requested a psychological assessment but the court refused and instead imposed a supervision order. There is concern that without specialist guidance the work probation did with him might be counterproductive and increase risk.
A 44 year old male was charged with harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He had previous convictions for theft, driving with excess alcohol and criminal damage. He has been breaching restraining orders since 2003. He admitted that his relationship with the victim had been violent and received two cautions for assault during the course of that relationship. The victim says she was punched in the face and that he was continually verbally abusive towards her particularly following excess bouts of alcohol. He received a suspended sentence for nine months plus a two year community order with a condition that he participate in a domestic abuse programme.
A 53 year old male was charged with harassment and burglary. He had one previous conviction for harassment. He has a history of making phone calls to his ex-partner, following her when she was visiting friends, sending test messages that he knew where she was. He broke into her home and stole notebooks and accessed her computer. He was then found hiding in her garden. This was all over a period of 12 months. He was given a 12 month community order with a condition that he take part in a domestic abuse programme. He did participate in the programme but it made little difference to his behaviour. He breached his order by phone but the victim refused to allow the police to confront him about his behaviour. Probation has experienced difficulty with her disclosures coupled with her refusal to make them formal.
A 39 year old man was charged with harassment. He had a number of previous convictions including acquisitive crime, sexual abuse of a half-brother, threats to kill and domestic violence. The stalking behaviour has been going on for three years. He received a community order for two years. 14 He is said to have been responding to supervision by focussing on his sexual abuse, his poor attachments and his addiction to drugs. Probation believe he may be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. The perpetrator comes from a professional background and was able to express feelings well compared with most others convicted of similar offences. The victim also came from a professional background and was able to put forward an articulate victim impact statement, which again is thought to be rare.
A 28 year old male was charged with harassment. He had no previous convictions. The stalking behaviour involving following and phone calls had been going on for two months. He received a 24 month supervision order. He has not attended any programmes. The victim had made two previous complaints to the police before the matter was actioned.
A 36 year old male was charged with harassment. He had no previous convictions. His relationship had broken down in autumn 2010. The offender then persistently harassed the victim until she reported it to the police in April 2011. He would continually attend at the victim’s property, almost on a daily basis. He caused damage to property by smashing windows and doors and breaking and entering. He also threatened to set fire to the victim’s house on several occasions. He would also follow her to friend’s houses and then ring her and say he knew where she was. On at least one occasion he hid in the boot of her car whilst she drove to a friend’s house using keys that he had kept. He was given a 12 month supervision order and a condition that the do 100 hours unpaid work, and an indefinite restraining order. He has participated previously in community programmes but only unpaid work. It is of concern to probation that it took seven months before the behaviour was reported to the police.
A 50 year old male was charged with harassment. He has previous convictions for actually bodily harm. The stalking of the victim has been going on for 14 months. For the index offence he received a six month community order plus a three month curfew. He has not participated in any programmes. A restraining order is in place for 12 months expiring in late 2012.
The Study concludes:
The range of sentences handed down reflects how serious stalking behaviour can become and why the courts must take previous offending into account. Virtually all those given three months or more involved serious violence, attempts to kill or even homicide. These cases show how offending behaviour can escalate and the absence of mental health treatment. In every case the pattern in stalking involved following, unwanted and unannounced visits, threats, texts, emails, unwanted gifts and attention over a period of many months or even years. The remaining 41 perpetrators were given community sentences, although eight had not yet been sentenced or were on remand. The sentence for breach of a restraining order tended to be stated in days or week rather than months or years. They were usually for less than 12 months and
Yet in reality I had harassed no one, had no previous convictions for harassment or sending malicious communications, and that is not to mention that the charges should have been dismissed time and again, yet the Judge considers my 1 polite Facebook message worthy of a prison sentence!
(73) Since August 27th was beyond the 21 day period to put in an appeal against a conviction, the blatantly biased Judge Woollard was now going to pass sentence knowing that I had put in an appeal against conviction largely based on his blatant disregard of the law.
(74) I had to put the appeal in myself since I appeared to have been abandoned by my solicitor who had totally ignored my emails and despite promises from other staff at the law firm, that they will ensure that the solicitor in question would ring me back – being as they were never there when I called.
(75) I was later sent a prosecution disclosure bundle last – as required by law – in regard to the two image trial which was at that time due to be held in September 2015 – which my solicitors had received before my harassment trial yet had inexplicably held onto for 3 weeks. Now bearing in mind that the 2 trials are linked by my illegally seized computers, what was interesting about this bundle was that tucked away at the back was a list of the evidence that the prosecution were not intending to bring up in court. And one of the items on that list was the fact that it had not been the Greater Manchester Police who requested Essex Police arrest me… It was in fact the Metropolitan Police who had done so.
(76) Therefore, the immediate question to spring to mind was “why on earth would – a Manchester resident – make a complaint to a London police force about a fella from Essex? Makes no sense, although it does to me, but because my bail conditions prevent me defending myself I can’t tell you why.
(77) There can be no mistake because after submitting a FOI request to the Met police in regard to the layout of their witness sheets, it turns out that the [inadmissible] witness statement (allegedly taken on the 16th of July 2014), which is partly typed and the added to in biro (thus deeming it inadmissible) is done so on a Metropolitan Police witness statement sheet. Moreover, it is blatantly obvious that the date stated on the witness statement which formed the initial complaint filed by a Manchester resident, to the Metropolitan Police about a man in Essex has been further added to, sometime after the statement was compiled as it is written in different handwriting, by someone with a much heavier hand using a pen with a much darker shade of black ink.
(78) In turn, you also have to ask yourself why I, the Court, the Press and every person following the case has been deliberately led to believe that The Greater Manchester Police are responsible for ordering my arrest. For example, the following is a direct quote from an Essex Police Spokesmen which was quoted in nearly all of the national newspapers:
“He is at Southend Police Station helping officers with their enquires. The arrest relates to an allegation of harassment via social media which has been referred to Essex Police by Greater Manchester Police.” Source
(79) The evidence that I collected over countless hours in a period of a year and a half is indisputable when read properly and as a whole. I have since been ordered to remove the evidence from this website – not because it is harassing anyone, but because your government does not want you to know what they are really doing.
(80) When Judge Woollard had finished summing up in the trial, the prosecutor, Tony Abell – one of the country’s most experienced barristers and a part time high court judge to boot, who took the time off from prosecuting serious organized crime and multi-million pound fraud cases in order to prosecute me for a misdemeanor, gave Judge Woollard his view of the case to assist him in handing down an appropriate sentence, as is required by law. Tony Abell told Judge Woollard that this case was “high end” – a blatant lie because I have not harassed anyone and harassment at the “high end” comes under Section 4 and is an either way offence triable in Crown Court.
Indeed, you only need read the examples above of harassment as a summary offence to realise that my case, at worst, is the very lowest of the low end. Tony Abell, then added – with perverse pleasure and in lieu of me having no previous convictions – that some of the photos that I had used in my articles were of children (whilst neglecting to point out that the photos were all in the public domain and only used to back up my claims) before stating that I was to go on trial in September for possessing illegal images of children – the inference being there for all to see, despite the subsequent prosecution case collapsing and me being found not guilty of all charges.
Now, I can state that I have no regrets and would do it all again in the blink of an eye. A government filled with corrupt, thieving, paedophiles who are working to our detriment is not acceptable by any standards.
However, in uncovering the truth I do expect to have your support and backing… Therefore, I would ask that you share this report far and wide, keep sharing it and then share it some more.
Those then are the TRUE facts all of which either have been or can be evidenced and anyone who thinks that treatment is acceptable in this country needs a serious reality check.
Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to people being taken away in the middle of the night by military type thugs without the need for any warrants, based on a single allegation made without evidence of a crime which is at best a misdemeanor.
Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to the police kicking down your front door in the middle of the day without warrant, on evidence that they themselves have planted without any recourse and under the protection of the law courts.
Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to children who are very much loved and well cared for, being taken from innocent parents, guilty at best of a misdemeanor, and placed in care homes where they are left to the mercy of paedophiles.
Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to the jailing of someone who questions the government narrative on any given subject.
Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable can have no gripe when they are jailed for calling someone a liar in a private forum that the aggrieved has had to actively seek out to see if the slur was true.
NONE OF THE ABOVE IS EXAGGERATION.
You should be aware that what this abomination perpetrated against my family is every bit as bad as the crimes against humanity alleged by our MSM to being committed in countries such as China, North Korea and Belarus.
You should also be aware that a petition started by someone over the persecution of me and my family at the time of my court trial was removed without any forthcoming explanation by the petition website.
There is clear, photographed evidence that another petition started by someone in protest at the persecution being aimed at me and my family is having many signatures removed from it, despite the petition website denying the fact.
Bizarrely, those in charge really believe that people are as thick as shit… Although there could actually be some foundation to their belief.
You all need to stand up and be counted.