Justice UK Style

image_pdfimage_print

Christopher Spivey

 

Well that’s the Woolfe gone, but who next are the government going to choose to whitewash their historic child sex abuse investigation.

These Monsters really do not know when to stop taking the piss do they?

I mean, the cunts even continued to take the piss after Vagina Woolfe had stepped down:

Abuse victims last night angrily accused the Home Office of ‘duping’ them into attending a pointless meeting to discuss the Fiona Woolf controversy – after they found out she had decided to quit as abuse inquiry chairman days earlier.

Survivors, pressure groups and lawyers travelled from all over the country to make their voices heard at the showdown on Friday morning. Some got up before dawn and spent hundreds of pounds on train tickets.

Officials listened to almost all of the 21 people present declare that they would not support the inquiry into historical child abuse while Mrs Woolf remained chairman, because of her friendship with former Home Secretary Leon Brittan – a friendship first revealed by The Mail on Sunday.

But the campaigners later discovered that Mrs Woolf had told the Home Office several days earlier that she had decided to step down. Source

But what I want to know is just why the fuck she was picked anyway?

And just why are we allowing these arseholes to take the right fucking piss in the first place?

I’m proper pissed of today I can tell you, after being up until 7.30 AM yesterday with a raging toothache that was too painful to work and too painful to sleep and things not being much easier last night.

Add that to the fact that my front door and bedroom window were finally supposed to have been fixed on Friday (a month after the robo-thugs did the damage) yet neither were, despite assurances from Rochford Housing Associations(RHA) estate manager that they would be along with two txt messages from RHA received earlier on in the week reminding us that the work was to be carried out.

Yet come Friday no one came and when Stacey rang them (I’m too hot-headed to handle this level of incompetence & piss-taking) to complain, she was first told that the workmen had been to ours, knocked (on the sheet of chipboard covering the area where my front door should be presumably) and got no answer, to which Stacey replied “Bollocks did they, we have two dogs who would have heard no matter how soft they knocked”.

After then telling Stacey that they would ring her back, RHA then came out with some old bollox about them having to order the window to size, with no mention being made of the front door. They then tried to book the work in for the 25th of November to which Stacey told them that, that was totally unacceptable.

So, as it stands at the moment we are booked in for emergency repairs (three days ago and a month after the damage was done), which will go ahead sometime fuck knows when!

Now obviously RHA have spoken to the corrupt Essex Police about the damage which kinda makes me think that RHA have been told to “fuck him about”.

I mean, as we know, the plod are still trying to stitch me up for one thing or another despite your best efforts. That much is clear by the unhelpful responses that you have been getting from them and the social services in reply to your e-mails.

Meantime, my MP, James Dudd-ridge’s continued silence is deafening – the fraud cunt.

And even the one MP who has actually done something – by writing to the Chief Constable of Essex – was fobbed off.

Mind you, I am pleased to see that I am not the only one that the fraud Duddridge holds in contempt – see HERE

Hmmm, quite obviously Duddridge doesn’t like being criticized then, whilst at the same time leaving himself wide open to it.

Course, there is a lot more proof that the Right Honorable Jimmy D is far from being honorable as you can see for yourself should you wish, by reading my article entitled Cameron’s Comedians which you can find by clicking HERE

AS for that letter written by the MP Chi Onwurah to the Essex Chief Cunstable on my behalf, after one of my readers named Alan contacted him?

Well, it would seem that even our MP’s get fobbed off by the Essex Police.

10471023_822648841130736_8120057539319303758_nI also note that Jimmy Dudders has been included in that correspondence.

So, as far as I can see, you now need to demand to know exactly why these people are fobbing you off. We pay their wages and I would be interested to know why someone arrested on suspicion of harassment has a TEAM of detectives investigating a misdemeanor.

Indeed, with all the newspaper reports stating that the Odd Bod Plod Squad are supposed to be investigating me for suspicion of harassment on Social Media, you would be entitled to ask why they had to illegally steal my computers in the first place. After all, the proof of harassment should have been there to see being as it was on “social media” and since it wasn’t then surely there is no crime to investigate?

Therefore, they are trying to stitch me up.

Moreover, my Clayton is far from safe. Indeed we have the Social Worker Nicole Miles and one of her partners in crime descending on us again this coming friday… Fuck me, it is hardly surprising that so many children are having to endure being abused in Essex (and all over the country for that matter) with Essex Social Services spending so much time and money needlessly investigating the innocent is it?

Course, if you want to know what passes for justice these days, then take a look no further than the [in] justice handed down to Paedophile Ring whistle-blower, Melanie Shaw:

A jury delivered a shock guilty verdict on paedophile ring whistleblower, Melanie Shaw, yesterday, accused of starting a shed fire and throwing paint on a neighbour’s home in Nottingham, England. 

Observers watched with incredulity as Judge Michael Pert QC announced the news, resulting in a conviction of arson – reckless as to whether life was endangered, on February 1, and damaging property on June 26. Sentencing will take place in six weeks following a psychiatric report.

An absence of substantive evidence, coupled with irregularities in the conduct of the trial, has reinforced public opinion that Beechwood Children’s Home survivor, Melanie Shaw, is the victim of a carefully orchestrated establishment set-up intended to silence her and protect a high-ranking paedophile ring involved in crimes against children and child abuse – some of whom are said to have been murdered, committed suicide or disappeared without trace.

Continue reading

But then again, we all know why Melanie is being targeted don’t we.
And sadly, to our shame, injustice is going on up and down the country every single day of the week – much more often than not, unreported to the public at large.

So, as a perfect and extremely disturbing example of such injustice, take the case of Teresa Skelton.

Teresa and her husband are child abuse campaigners yet following a minor skirmish, they soon found out that justice no longer exists in this country.

Lets up our game people.

 

BRITISH JUSTICE?  IT’S A JOKE

Teresa Skelton

sele

PHOTO: Judge David Selwood

Fairness, objectivity and impartiality, a justice system based on these fine principles with court decisions that infallibly reflect them – that’s what we’re supposed to have here in Britain.

And if you believe that you’ll believe anything!

My name is Teresa Skelton and I was charged under England’s so called Public Order Act in connection with an incident in Winchester city centre, Hampshire in 2003. The case came to trial in 2004. I was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court at Andover. The conviction was subsequently upheld by a judge in Winchester Crown Court.

I was originally summonsed for common assault, a charge that was so absurd it had to be dropped. In the end this was reduced to what is the lowest and most trivial level of the Public Order Act (“causing harassment, alarm and distress”), involving penalties of fines and costs.

But the implications of my conviction are far from trivial when you look at how it was obtained. That is why for ten years I have never ceased seeking remedy for the miscarriage of justice to which I was subject (which, needless to say, I have never found).

“THE CRIME”

The norm is that when people in the street collide with each other there is usually an exchange of “sorry” and nothing more, whether it was your fault or not, and then people usually go on their way without any further thought on the matter. Well not in this case for the so called “victim” who initiated the whole confrontation.

The original incident over which I was charged involved a minor collision between a woman and my husband as he was walking out of a shop. The woman used aggressive and obscene words and gestures against my husband whom she called a “fucking pervert” with a suggestion that in some way he had deliberately walked into her from improper motives.

As she swore, with much use of the “f” word, and made a two-finger gesture at my husband I replied by saying that her language was appalling. When I repeated that her language in public was absolutely disgusting she stuck her two fingers up. Quite an aggressive type of woman, you might think.

Anyway, I told her there wasn’t the slightest need for any of this because my husband had apologised, which she then tried to contradict. In a state of some exasperation I made it clear that my husband would be uninterested in any woman like her.

In a single sentence I said “you have nothing to fear from my husband because for one thing your language is absolutely atrocious, and, two, you are fat and ugly” – strong words perhaps, but intended to explain rather than offend, unlike her own.

At all events my whole response to this lady was driven by a legitimate concern for the good name of my husband in face of such unwarranted, indeed outlandish abuse of him in a public place. Clearly I wasn’t dealing with somebody prepared to be reasonable, and my husband and I withdrew into a shop whose manageress (Jane Ryder-Smith) we asked to call security so that we could leave.

Actually she had already summoned them.

Eventually one security guard turned up. I told him that I had to leave immediately as I was under pressure of time to collect my six-year-old daughter from school and therefore was unable to explain anything to him. As an act of good faith I gave him my name and address and promised to return next day to give him my account of the situation. This he accepted and I left.

However, as we were leaving the premises the lady with whom we had had the difficulty, changed her demeanour with dramatic suddenness now that the security man was on the scene. From being as hard as nails, as she had been up to then, she seemed out of the blue to opt for victimhood going through the motions of weeping loudly.

NEXT DAY

I returned next day to speak to the manageress of security, Ms Pam Gillard. In fact it was she who told me that the lady had spent a good half hour apparently in a distressed state (She wasn’t distressed during the incident, far from it) in her office. I did tell Pam that there had been no security at the scene of the incident itself, and she said that two security guards had brought the lady to the office.

One of these security guards I have never met and certainly from my point of view wasn’t there at any stage of the previous day’s events.

She informed me that there were 39 video cameras in the centre that day, all fully operational. She thanked me for coming in and seemed to think the whole affair was over.

SIX WEEKS LATER

Accordingly for the next six weeks I thought nothing more of the matter until my next door neighbour passed on a message left by the police asking me to phone them, which I did. Until then I had no idea that the lady involved in the Brooks Centre incident had been so vindictive as to report me to our local constabulary for alleged abusive behaviour towards her and no idea what they wanted with me. Only now did they make their move against me.

In my naiveté at that time I had little notion of their sly duplicity. They “invited” me to drop in at Winchester Police Station to discuss an unnamed “incident” without saying what it was, let alone hinting at any intention of charging me. Accordingly I turned up unexpectedly and quite voluntarily to find out what was going on.

THE HUSTLE

I made it plain to the duty officer I met, Sgt Berry, that I had very little time and just wanted to know what this was all about. Whilst we were talking her sidekick WPC Brown 3298, as I subsequently came to know her, moved like greased lightning. I have never seen a police officer move so fast.

When Brown breathlessly returned with a tape machine Sgt Berry hastily pushed me into a side room with Brown ahead of me, assuring me that her underling would “explain it all.”

What WPC Brown 3298 did was to rush me into an interview over the Brooks Centre incident. With hindsight it is now quite obvious that these officers were determined to charge me from the word go. No fairness, no justice, no consideration that if a charge was being contemplated a proper appointment should have been made so that the accused could have time and space to consider matters carefully.

Just try to rush ‘em into making any statement that you can use against them. That seemed to be the procedure. Knowing, what I do now I’d say it’s probably standard. In the interview itself I made a few things plain:-

• There was no security present on the scene of the incident.
• I did not make any such grotesque remark as that “all fat people should not be on the earth.”
• I do not swear.
• In no way was I going to confess to any sort of guilt.

We’ll be coming back to these points later.

I had to cut all this short because in accordance with my usual routine I had to collect my daughter from school.

But as a parting shot I did comment to WPC Brown 3298 that I felt the police should do a proper job, not be getting involved in women’s tiffs, let alone be taking sides in them on behalf of people like the complainant.

As it now turned out they chose the few days just before Christmas 2003 to issue their summons. Never let it be said that our police do nothing to spread seasonal cheer!

THE FIT-UP

When I received the case documentation from the Crown Prosecution Service I realised that they had included police statements from the very same security guards (Simon Major who I have met briefly and Ian Robert Green whom I had not) who I had told WPC Brown 3298 had never been on the scene of the dispute between the woman complainant and myself, and which attributed to me both actions I did not carry out and statements I had never made, and that in fact no sane human being would ever make.

This material contained the complainant’s accusation in her own statement of my saying that “all fat people should not be on the earth,” “confirmed” by one of the security guards, Ian Robert Green, a gentlemen I have never in my life knowingly met right up to the present day.

Quite apart from my spoken English grammar being a good bit better than this, such a crazy proposition would hardly fit with my philosophy or outlook on life.

At the same time the police had quite clearly failed to interview witnesses whose testimony favoured me. They did not speak to the shopping precinct manageress, Pam Gillard, who would have confirmed that I returned the day after the incident to ask if any sort of statement was required of me.

Nor did they release the details of a telephone interview with the shop manageress, Jane Ryder Smith, in the precinct, who would have stated that I was the one who asked her to call security in order to calm the situation. It’s pretty obvious that I was not in any way trying to dodge any duties as a good citizen. My actions weren’t those of a guilty person.

You might have thought that the police would have taken such considerations on board before pushing for a prosecution. But no traces of this exist in any Crown Prosecution Service documents that have subsequently come my way.

Nor were there any traces of CCTV data from the 39 cameras in the Brooks Centre. WPC Brown 3298 had claimed to me in interview that there was no CCTV material. She hadn’t said why. As may be recalled, when I went back to Pam Gillard she assured me that there was. I have little doubt that police ignored this not just out of idleness, but also because they feared it might favour me. Not least it would have shown the absence of security guards.

Brown’s subsequent claim to her superior officer that CCTV did not cover the area where the complainant and I confronted each other seems utterly incredible! (See Appendix 2).

APPENDIX 2
Minute Sheet (No. 1) to WPS Berry, from WPC 3298 Brown and signed by A Brown 3298.

Incredibly this claims that CCTV did not cover the very public area where the complainant and I had our exchange.
It makes it plain that my attendance at Winchester Police Station was voluntary.
Finally it couples the complainant’s statement with those of two security guards, including the “phantom” whom I never met. I only ever spoke briefly to one security guard after the incident.
The complainant’s statement bears me out on the fact that only one security guard attended after the actual incident was over. (See Appendix 3).

My next move after visiting Winchester police station (seven times prior to my trial) to suggest that officers should look at these matters was to mount an official complaint against Hampshire Constabulary for inadequately investigating the case. Their response was that they would only deal with my complaint after the case had been heard in court, strictly, they said, in my own interest (yeah, right)… Now where have I heard that before – Spivey

THE UNFAIR HEARING

The case was heard at Andover Magistrates Court, Hampshire in the spring of 2004. The solicitor from White and Bowker, Winchester, representing me, Robert Simpson, seemed smugly to assume there would be no full hearing but that I would just be bound over to keep the peace (i.e. told not to do it again otherwise I would lose the money I would have to pledge against my future “good behaviour”).

I told him this was not for me as I had done absolutely nothing to be bound over for. To me a thing like that would be some form of admission of guilt.

Mr Simpson then briefed a barrister to “defend” me. Despite my express wishes and expectations for a trial this gentleman refused to act according to my directions in this matter. The first thing he said to me when we met at court before the hearing was that “I had nothing to worry about. The trial will not be going ahead.”

I was surprised at this and asked if they were dropping the charges. He rode roughshod over me, emphatically asserting that I would be bound over and then I could “go home.” He then went off, presumably to confer with court officials and prosecution counsel.

The next minute he emerged, white in the face and in a flat spin, to tell me the trial was going ahead, whoever had decided this and whomever he had spoken to. It was obvious Robert Simpson did not tell the barrister I didn’t want a bind over. It was equally obvious that the barrister had not bothered to master the brief.

He had clearly done absolutely no work. He didn’t even know what the case was about.

In short he altogether failed to cross examine the complainant over her own conduct in the original incident. He didn’t even raise the little matter of her telling my husband and me to “fuck off” while making V-signs. He even let her get anyway with claiming that this gesture was a “victory sign”.

It did not occur to him to ask what there could possibly be in this situation for her to want to triumph over, especially if she was the victim she claimed to be. Nor did he question her when she alleged, entirely falsely, that I had sworn at her several times, a claim as damaging as it was false that was thus allowed to stand. In the magistrates court notes she alleged that I swore three times using the “f” word. In fact I didn’t swear once.

He failed to cross examine the security guard, Simon Major, even though I had told him the man’s statement was entirely false. As stated above, when security arrived I had to leave the Brooks Centre, confirmed by the complainant’s statement! (See Appendix 3).

 

APPENDIX 3
Complainant’s statement.

This statement supports me on:-
• Security being called by the shop manageress after the incident.
• My almost immediate departure upon the one security guard’s appearance.
Hence,
• The impossibility of his having heard the words he claims in his statement, and the falsity of the “phantom” guard’s statement. The complainant makes it clear that what the security guard who showed up knew of the incident was only what she told him.
The complainant is wrong about the reason she believes that I lelt so quickly. I never heard her say that she wanted the police involved, and I do not believe she did until some time later.

This man obviously committed perjury, and got away with it because this abortion of a barrister could not even spot the obvious. No wonder Mr Major fled the court at such speed after giving his false testimony.

Needless to say, Ian Robert Green, the phantom security man I had never met, did not put in an appearance.

But there was more. We were not only dealing with a phantom security guard but also with phantom events.

As my above description of what happened in the Brooks centre makes perfectly clear, I only so much as got a glimpse of any security guard immediately before quitting the premises, leaving my name with him.

Out of nowhere the C.P.S. lawyer demanded to know what happened when the Brooks security guards “took me away.” I was somewhat stunned by this. Where on earth did the man get it from? When I said that nobody had ever taken me away he turned up the volume practically shouting at me, “I want to discuss with you what happened when the security guards took you away.” I simply told him that I didn’t know what he was talking about.

Aggressively he threw my police statement practically into my stomach and yelled, “Why isn’t this in your statement?” To which I replied that I had never been asked any such question about this absolute non-event by the interviewing officer (WPC Brown 3298).

At this he sat down immediately and said, “No further questions.” He was obviously trying to establish me in the minds of the Magistrates as furtive, evasive and guilty.

Could it be that when there is no hard evidence and they are really out to get somebody, our prosecuting authorities are not above using the lowest forms of psychological trickery to bamboozle our all too pliable judges, magistrates and other judicial personnel into giving them the decision they want?

Inevitably in the circumstances I was found guilty by the magistrates. But the manner of their doing so certainly had some unusual aspects. When the court re-convened we all rose to enter the room but were then stopped. The Magistrates apparently had to return to their place of deliberation (are we dealing with someone in authority leaning on them to produce the “right” verdict and sentence via a late telephone call? I might be being paranoid here, but after what I have seen and am reporting who could gainsay the possibility?)

In about ten minutes or so the magistrates took their seats and we all went into court. The chairwoman curtly announced “we find you guilty”, without any word of explanation of the magisterial findings and she and her colleagues in short order imposed a hefty fine. The court was then dismissed.

This is the first court proceedings I have ever heard of at which the president, magistrate or judge did not indulge in either moralising about the wickedness of the convicted person or explain the justice of verdict and penalty. Justice being seen to be done??

It’s also worth a footnote at least that, however incompetent and inadequate his performance on your behalf in court may be, your legal representative still gets his cheque from the legal aid fund paid by you and me, Joe Soap taxpayer. I don’t think that, whatever happened to me, White and Bowker’s man left court that day out of pocket – or the barrister either. Nice work if you can get it.

“MINOR DIFFERENCES”

Of course I appealed against the magistrates’ decision. The appeal, in the form of a re-hearing of the evidence before Judge Boney at Winchester Crown Court, took place at the end of August 2004.

Again the new barrister acting for the defence, Mr David Reid went off for a bind over and was startled to find that the case was going ahead. I had told him that it would, but in his arrogance he brushed me aside. After all, what does a pleb like me know about anything as compared with the godlike omniscience of the legal profession?

This time only two witnesses for the prosecution were present. These were WPC Brown 3298, who had conducted my questioning at Winchester police station prior to my being charged and the woman complainant claiming to have been my “victim” in the original incident.

There was no trace of the shopping centre security guard. Evidently the Crown Prosecution Service were not keen to hazard their case by exposing this gentleman to what might prove more thorough cross-examination in the higher court (though as it turned out he would have had little enough to fear from the defence barrister supposedly representing me.)

As it was, the lady complainant had to submit to questioning during which she was forced to admit that I never swore at her but that she did swear at me – an exact reversal of her position before the Magistrates and in her police statement.

Nor did she give an account of how the collision took place even though I had taken my own photographs proving that two people could not have come out of the shop at once and she claimed to have collided with a “couple”. Did the judge have his glasses on? Perhaps he should have gone to Specsavers.

WPC Brown 3298 added to the atmosphere of perjury surrounding the two court proceedings by claiming aggressively and contemptuously without even being asked, that I had had to be “ordered” into Winchester police station for questioning in 2003 when she knew full well that I had appeared there entirely voluntarily, and indeed unexpectedly, a strange thing to say in view of her signed statement in writing at the end of her transcript of our interview that I “attended…. for a voluntary interview.” (See Appendix 5, also Appendix 2).

APPENDIX 5
WPC 3298 Brown’s signed statement.

As in her minute sheet to WPS Berry she acknowledges that I attended Winchester police station voluntarily.

This malicious lie delivered under oath was clearly designed to portray me in a “guilty” light.

Under mild probing by the defence counsel on this point (he had to ask her twice) WPC Brown conceded that my attendance at the police station had been voluntary, but only by an inconspicuous nod of the head and without a word!

Neither my lawyer Mr Reid nor Judge Boney made her speak. In fact Boney kept his eyes down, looking as if he was writing, in spite of Brown having lied under oath a few seconds earlier.

Presumably this implies – or could do so – that Brown’s slur on my character would stand in any written record of the proceedings, whereas her enforced retraction of this vicious little lie would be airbrushed out.

Indeed, throughout these proceedings where was the judge? In spite of my defence counsel assuring me that Mr Boney would not miss the perjury implicit in the complainant’s admissions – a clear, if compelled, “coming clean” over her testimony under oath at Andover – the judge himself never stopped to quiz her about this startling alteration or to remark on her falsehood. He was equally supine with Brown.

In fact it was only when I was testifying that he seemed to wake up. His approach to me was completely different from what it had been towards the complainant and Brown 3298 to whom he did not say one word. With me his questioning seemed non-stop when I went into the witness box.

When I used the word “atrocious” he seemed surprised that someone like myself could be aware of a word like that. He said “whose word is that?” Apparently, you see, I’m too ill-educated and ignorant to know anything of the English language, just the sort to be a natural criminal! It all smacks slightly of his uncritical acceptance of WPC Brown’s characterisation of me.

The complainant had accused me of pushing a “little man” away during the course of the incident between us. The Judge asked me whether I remembered this person. I responded by asking him, “how little is a little man?” Please bear in mind that I was nine stone at the time and am 5’ 3” in height – and I’m supposed to push men around, big or little! I leave it to you to guess how little such a man would have had to be. Ludicrous!

There was another question he asked about the relative positions of those on the scene of the incident. I replied to the best of my recollection.

In a slightly hectoring tone he asked me why I hadn’t answered the question. I replied in some surprise: “What’s the question?” He repeated it and I gave him the same answer. So what was that all about? Perhaps he should have been as pushy with Brown!

Finally he asked me why I did not just walk away. This is where I challenged him, as I felt I had to, with the question: “And what would you have said if I had?”

Clearly he wanted to put me in the position where it was heads the prosecution won, tails I lost.

If I had walked away from the encounter he would have been able to claim that the complainant’s words and behaviour had not been so outrageous after all, and my reaction had been over the top.

At all events Judge Boney evidently could not grasp why a wife might want to stand up for her husband’s honour. Au contraire he took this as evidence of guilt – a topsy-turvy view of right and justice to match the topsy-turvy ordering of the world in which we now live to which he seemed to subscribe.

At this point he went silent, looked down and relapsed into his normal state of apparent coma.

In short I don’t think I went into that appeal with a snowball’s chance in hell. This was particularly so since, as I have subsequently heard, Mr Boney appears to have something of a track record of bias in favour of “Authority”. In this case he has certainly shown no interest in the internal proceedings of the police and CPS. This has emerged in long correspondence with him (or at least the minions who speak for him).

It’s not as if I haven’t drawn his attention to the “irregularities” of the prosecuting authorities in my case (of which more below).

But for me the most striking thing has been his response, or lack of it, to the perjury taking place under his very nose in his court on the part of WPC Brown 3298. The complainant’s obvious perjury before the magistrates was apparently of no importance to him.

In correspondence Mr Boney’s spokesperson breezily replied to my challenge over the complainant’s volte face, as between the two hearings, that my barrister “did indeed question her to the effect that in several respects there had been minor differences between her evidence in the two courts, so the point did not go unmade on your behalf.” (Letter from Judge Boney’s spokesman, Her Majesty’s Court Service, David Hood, 14th December 2005).

But it evidently went unheard by the judge.

We are, after all, looking at false testimony under oath, turning the truth upside down (a.k.a. perjury?), of a kind that should have discredited such a witness in his eyes. But, no. Apparently this was all just one of these “minor differences.”

In the event Judge Boney confirmed the guilty verdict of the magistrates.

Strangely he said he agreed with what the Magistrates had said. What did they say? They never said anything, so what did he read that made him agree with them?

As for Mr N Rowland the C.P.S. barrister, who must clearly have grasped the perjury of the complainant, the mendacity of WPC Brown 3298 and the quality of the case he was pushing, it is unlikely that he gave a damn about anything but his pay cheque. Job done. 30 pieces of silver please.

There was just one point in his cross-examination of me which was of some interest. When I pointed out in reply to one of his questions that the complainant had been very rude to me Mr Rowland retorted that she had been “only mildly abusive!”

Well how mild is “mild”? “Abuse” is surely quite a heavy word in anybody’s vocabulary. As my case proved, if you are accused of it you can end up in the dock! Perhaps the complainant should have been there too! “Mildly abusive”? An element of oxymoron in this, surely.

In any case, by what sort of supernatural insight would he know how abusive the complainant had been, and shouldn’t the fact that the Prosecution acknowledged her abusiveness have served at least as a mitigation for me?
Not as far as the judge was concerned.

THE CHERRY PICKER

Mr Boney’s final words in upholding that verdict were a triumph of cherry picking. He was all for any turn of phrase making for guilt, without taking account of other items of evidence which would counterbalance and contextualize it.

Here there is a very interesting complex of circumstances. I know what Judge Boney said in his summing up at the end of the hearing. This can be corroborated from the independent testimony of an alert, reliable observer in the court that afternoon, the whole purpose of whose presence was to note in detail what was said by all present, witnesses, lawyers, and judge included.

When, after the trial, at some personal expense, I obtained from the Court Service what was supposed to be a transcript of the proceedings, this turned out to be far from verbatim.

I tried to get Boney’s help in obtaining a complete account of what he’d said. But no go. The same court service minions who thought the differences in the complainant’s testimony as between the two hearings so “minor” an issue assured me that the transcript contained all that Boney remembered saying. It would seem my own memory is a bit more efficient than his.

At the end of my appeal Judge Boney spoke at some length. The “transcript” consisted of two brief paragraphs which could have been uttered in little more than as many seconds. Even as a summary of the judge’s words this was wholly inadequate. Altogether omitted were several vital phrases he used.

In particular Mr Boney said in formulating his judgement that in the words I used to the complainant during our original encounter and which I fully acknowledge using, he “took my sentence as a whole.” Once again, these were:

“You have nothing to fear from my husband because, for one thing, your language is absolutely atrocious and, two, you’re fat and you’re ugly and there’s no way my husband would ever want to touch a woman like you unless it was accidental.”

I said in court that this was an explanation as to why my husband would not want her in any sexual way, “however unflattering that may sound.”

If Boney was “taking my sentence as a whole” and hence basing his decision upon it, it follows that he was thus acknowledging that these were, as I maintained, the words I used.

The judge is quoted in the transcript I have as saying that he did not believe that the complainant used the phrase “F***ing pervert,” or equivalent. But omitted is his admission of my believing that she did, so that he is in no way questioning my veracity.

(In fact the exposure of the witness as having lied in Andover Magistrates’ Court about her own obscene language against me and her mendacious allegations of my having sworn at her surely should have raised suspicion in his mind about her behaviour during the events under consideration. But no, this was one cherry he didn’t want in his basket!)

This context makes all the more extraordinary the judge’s statement in court, and recorded in the transcript, that I had “accepted” that my words were insulting and abusive, which I was very far from doing. In fact my whole defence was that, read in context, the words were not, and were certainly not intended, to be so.

If he had been thinking straight he could hardly believe that I would have used the turn of phrase I did without a strong certainty of the complainant’s having publicly made a sexual allegation against my husband.

This was the only context which would make sense both of my words and my manner of delivering them, about which there was no disagreement between us.

The disagreement was in what each of us made of the words and the judge, I submit, chose to be far from rational in the matter. Not only had I not admitted any justice in the charge against me in any evidence I gave at any stage, but common sense ought to indicate that I would hardly have entered a not guilty plea, or tried to maintain it at appeal if I had done! (I can only think that Mr Boney picked up the idea of my having “admitted” to any sort of guilt from the way that WPC Brown went out of her way to showcase one of her own remarks (not in any way mine!) in reading back in court the statement I had given her at Winchester police station on the previous December.

She put particular vocal stress on the suggestion she had made to me during the interview that “you did actually call [the complainant] some names by your own admission as well.”

The prosecution counsel, who was questioning her on the stand, quoted my reply (anything but an admission): “No I didn’t swear. I don’t use swear words.” But he did so with a deadpan cadence calculated to downplay it and deprive it of force or emphasis.

By such subtleties, it may seem, is bias surreptitiously implanted into what ought to be an objective deliberation!

After this little piece of underhand courtroom gamesmanship it was no doubt in vain for the subsequent paragraph in my interview to be read out in which I contextualized my remarks to the complainant during our contretemps.)

Sorry to labour these convolutions as I may seem to be doing but, moving from fruit delicacies to baked ones, didn’t Judge Boney seem to want to have his cake and eat it? Whilst ignoring the only context for the “fat and ugly” remark which makes any sense he implicitly admitted it by accepting that I spoke to the complainant as I did when he used the phrase about taking my words “as a whole,” a vital phrase, along with his concession (big of him!) that I “genuinely believed” that she had used the obscenities I know she did.

Two things have to be present for a conviction under section 5(1) of the Public Order Act. There has to be an intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress through the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. There has also to be no reasonable ground for behaviour which may have this effect.

Judge Boney blew up into a big issue whether the complainant had really made the allegations against my husband of improper motives that she did. He decided that she had not and that this was “the central pivot” in my case.

This was a very questionable view. Section 5(3) makes it a defence to argue that one’s conduct in such situations is reasonable.

I have always maintained that my confrontation with the complainant and the language I used were not justified or otherwise by whether or not the complainant used the words “f***ing pervert” or their equivalent, as the Judge maintained. My case hinged on whether, viewed in its full context (including the complainant’s own proven atrocious conduct) my language was abusive or not, and whether it was intended in such a sense.

I repeat yet again, however severe my words may seem to have been, their purpose was not to abuse but to put right an aggressive, unreasonable, foul-mouthed woman, herself full of abuse.

Judge Boney, in my very strongly held opinion, almost wilfully misled himself in what he chose to accept and what he chose to ignore.

For the record I think it would be right to summarise the incident for which I was convicted by saying that the complainant made an abusive statement publicly against my husband. Without using any of her sort of language I tried to correct her as privately as the situation allowed. But all I got was the hard-nosed reaction I’ve described. In no way was this woman any sort of victim.

So Judge Boney managed neatly to turn the right order of things upside down. Now that’s misdirection!

CORRUPTING THE RECORD

But Judge Boney’s contribution to this travesty of justice did not stop there.

Naturally I needed an accurate verbatim transcript of his final words if I was to mount any sort of appeal against conviction. When I obtained the actual transcript that had been made I was aghast at its omissions and inaccuracies and wrote immediately to Judge Boney requesting his urgent assistance in getting a correct version of his summing up.

In a letter of 9th October 2004 I pointed out that the “transcript” omitted the key phrases mentioned above, gave his words in a different order from which he uttered them and compressed a long speech into a few lines.

At this stage I was not in the business of questioning the fellow’s fundamental honesty. I was prepared to give him the benefit of any doubt. He might have justified this by simply helping me as I asked.

But on 18th October a Miss N Vodden of Winchester Combined Court Centre (The Court Service) replied on Boney’s behalf that the “transcript” was an “entirely accurate record of everything that was said when judgement was given.”

I know otherwise. Judge Boney knows otherwise. Everybody in his court that day would know otherwise.

Why?

Because when Mr Boney proclaimed in his judgement that I “genuinely believed” that the complainant had insulted my husband in the terms I described I loudly dissented from his remark, calling out “she did” [I did not like being characterised as delusional). I also responded sharply when he asserted that I had “admitted” to abusing the complainant. I audibly and indignantly contradicted him (something that prompted my defence counsel to silence me). The judge’s assertion appears only in paraphrase in the “transcript” as the “appellant’s admitted behaviour.”
As for his phrase about “taking my words as a whole” (vital words) the “transcript” contains not a trace.

No transcript without these items in it would be the least use in an appeal as you will see from my account above of where and how I consider the judge to have misdirected himself.

Boney was apparently willing to “state a case,” as required for this purpose, but this would have been futile in the circumstances. It was obvious that he was just going to stand pat.

This led me into a long exchange of letters with the Court Service and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (Judicial Unit), which is where you go when you have a complaint about a judge (some chance), stretching across most of 2005.

It’s not worth recording all the nit-picking detail. Suffice if to say that I was up against yet another bureaucratic-legalistic stone wall, where truth comes second to “procedures” and where the procedures are infallible, so we’re persistently told. The procedures themselves seem endlessly to limit the possibilities for any officials really to help you, even if they wanted to. By law everybody’s powers stop short of what would be needed to get a result.

Thus my complaint against this judge went as far as a Mr Maurice Coyne of the Judicial Correspondence Unit who replied:-
“In your case, the Judge has approved the transcript as being an accurate record of the proceedings but you disagree and say that your recollection of what was said is somewhat different.”

O.K. so far, so good. But then we find that:-

“The approval of a transcript is a judicial act and it is not within the remit of the Lord Chancellor or his officials to comment upon or interfere with judicial acts or decisions. The Judicial Correspondence Unit is therefore unable to assist you.”

The one small concession that followed was that “in exceptional cases facilities can sometimes be provided for parties to listen to the tape recording of proceedings.” But this, it appears, is only “at the discretion of the trial Judge and the Court Manager.” So Judge Boney would always have a veto even over this if he wished to exercise it.

I had evidently by now made sufficient of a nuisance of myself that court officials actually proposed that I listen to the recording of the proceedings. I took them up on this immediately, went into a side room at Winchester law courts and heard what they had of Mr Boney’s summing up.

All there was consisted in the two paragraphs that turned up in the transcript, amounting to a few seconds’ worth of commentary from Mr Boney. His key phrases were gone as were my loud interruptions in answer to these.

The vital phrases were recorded by me in shorthand as he spoke and remembered clearly by my observant friend in the gallery. Yet the pen pushers of both Court Service and the Judicial Correspondence Unit had been assuring me for months that the technology was infallible and completely proof against tampering.

As for Mr Boney, I have asked for access to the written sheet from which he read his judgement. He and the scribes of the Crown Court have simply ignored my request, leaving me at a dead end.

POLICE SHENANIGANS, ADMINISTRATIVE CORRUPTION, AND JUDICIAL INDIFFERENCE

It’s a pity that the likes of Judge Boney, who seems to give such weight to their say-so, shows so little interest in how our police and prosecuting authorities go about their business.

It isn’t as if I haven’t tried to draw his attention to what happened behind the scenes the more effectively to incite the prosecution against me. I’ve laid out the whole wretched story for him in ongoing correspondence over the last decade.

The judiciary after all is putatively supposed in our national constitution to act as a counterweight to administrative malpractice in all branches of the executive, including the Police and Crown Prosecution Services, isn’t it?

But in my case Mr Boney has implicitly chosen to avail himself of the “get-out” that our constitution is unwritten which enables him to put the interests of PC Plod and Co ahead of those of an accused citizen, for all that the latter is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty. It is so much easier to turn a judicial blind eye, isn’t it.

He has never shown the slightest interest in what I have told him. After my appeal in his court had failed I finally received from White & Bowker in September 2004 a package of “unseen material” that would have been floating around the CPS since March at least – which, indeed, will clearly have been on my file with them throughout the proceedings against me.

The list of those provided included the following:

• A garbled, partly outright false account of my complaint against the police in a memorandum from Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead to the Crown Prosecution Service, dated 31st March 2004, of which more below. (See Appendix 1).
• A minute-sheet from WPC Brown 3298 to her superior WPS Berry alleging that I had “admitted during interview on 1st December 2003 to part of the offence” they wanted to charge me with and suggesting I was on the point of making “a full admission.”
Outrageous nonsense!

This item also expressed their determination to go with the statements of the Brooks Centre security guards (including the ghostly Ian Green) who had falsely claimed to be on the scene of the incident with “the aggrieved,” and whose statements were said to “confirm” that I was “the aggressor.” As we’ve seen, only one of these gentlemen put in an appearance, being summoned by a shop manageress after the incident was over. Even the “aggrieved’s” statement to police made it plain that this was so, so that security could not have seen or heard any of what was claimed. (See Appendix 2).

• A reference to a “blue custody record” supposedly held at Winchester Police Station (remember, I was never in custody). Of course, no copy of this has ever turned up, its absence from the collection of documents being noted by both Hampshire Constabulary (20/1/04) and the CPS (27/8/04) in letters to White and Bowker. WPC Brown’s signature appears at the bottom of a list of “unused” prosecution documents, endorsed with an illegible signature by a “reviewing lawyer,” which includes mention of this elusive “custody record.” Did the idea of my alleged “arrest” perhaps originate with WPC Brown? Was she the one who put this canard into the system? (See Appendix 6).

• A reference to an e-mail of unknown content dated 29/3/04 which was evidently not sent to White and Bowker and which they did not ask Hampshire Police to supply. To this day I have no idea what might have been in it, or whether it was of any importance.

From first to last and completely behind my back, the Police never appeared to hesitate in sinking my character, by lies if necessary, if they thought it likely to motivate the CPS in undertaking a prosecution and in any way to bias the courts in favour of a guilty verdict.

This extended to what might seem a petty omission in WPC Brown’s minute to WPS Berry. For instance she remarks of my December 2003 interview at Winchester Police Station that I was “only prepared to stay for ten minutes.” As she well knew and we both understood I had only limited time to speak since I had not turned up to be charged but to ask her what this was all about. I was seeking an explanation of some sort.

As I pointed out to her and have recorded earlier, I had to collect my young daughter from school.

In other words she left WPS Berry or anybody else to conclude that I was showing furtiveness and guilt by leaving so soon. Nothing prevented her from arranging a further appointment at another, more convenient time if she felt we needed longer. (See Appendix 2).

Such sly, surreptitious trickery is perhaps a stock-in-trade of our police and judicial system whose business is generating prosecutions. Police officers earn their salaries and promotions from their “productivity” in getting prosecutions and convictions and meeting centrally determined targets, and harassing the fundamentally law-abiding over pettifogging incidents is perhaps a quicker and easier way of doing this than going after real criminals, career criminals committing real offences who know how to work the system against the police and the CPS because they have the experience and the cunning.

This brings us to the next chapter of the whole sorry saga, and what is perhaps the most dramatic.

After my appeal I proceeded with my complaint against the police. For this purpose I attended an appointment at Winchester police station (Friday, 24th September 2004) to discuss the matter and brought with me a copy of Mr Readhead’s memorandum (item (1) above).

This purported to summarize my grievance.

In fact it misstated my complaint in such a way as to suggest the disreputability of my character.

It was simply a lie to state, as this document does, that I was ever arrested for this or any other offence (which is what in reality must account for the absence of any Custody Record). Nor did I ever allege that I suffered physical harm at the hands of any officer. Although it states that I was complaining about the standard of the investigation, my objection went far further than the mere failure of the police to interview my husband.

There is no mention of my objections to the lies in the statements signed by Brooks Centre security officers and the failure of the investigating police officer(s), especially WPC Brown 3298, to take their unreliability into account. But when I produced this document, of which I present a facsimile (See Appendix 1), it created the most extraordinary effect.

APPENDIX 1: Memorandum from the Deputy Chief Constable to the Crown Prosecution Service (31st March 2004). The document that puts the fear of God into the unrighteous!

I sat down at Winchester Police Station with two officers, a Rex Carpenter and a retired policeman whose name I was never told. Inspector Carpenter led the discussion on behalf of the police. To begin with he was all charm and smarm. He assured me that WPC Brown had done a very thorough investigation which he was very impressed with and much more of the same.

But then I drew out the Readhead memorandum and showed it to him, saying that Brown must have known of its falsity.
Instantly, without stopping to read it, indicating that he knew exactly what it was, Rex Carpenter lost his composure, and how!

He turned white and shouted at me “who gave you that?” Furious with rage he almost lunged at me, yelling, “I’m not ruining WPC Brown’s career for the likes of you!” I think Mr Carpenter might have assaulted me if we had been alone in the room.

He then rushed out, leaving me with the retired officer who was obviously shocked and disbelieving at his colleague’s aggression.

This officer moved quickly to Rex Carpenter’s vacated seat next to me taking the memorandum and my folder of papers and asking me what my complaint actually was and what my whole case had been about. (Perhaps Carpenter and Co had been subjecting him to the mushroom principle, keeping him in the dark with plenty of bull’s droppings for nourishment).

I had a brief conversation with him in which, among other things, I suggested that when a woman speaks to a man the way the complainant had done to my husband, if they did anything, the police should take her to one side and put her right rather than prosecute someone like me. He nodded as if for the first time he understood what I was actually saying, what had happened in the incident for which I had been prosecuted, and that I might have a point.

Rex Carpenter then stormed back into the room, bellowing “Get out!” at which point the retired officer quickly slipped my copy of the memorandum back into my folder which he handed straight back to me to make sure that I kept it. Had he not done this Mr Carpenter would undoubtedly have snatched it from me.

This was the only example of honesty and integrity I encountered in my entire dealings with the police.

ALL MATES TOGETHER – INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION COVERS UP.

I was not, of course, prepared to allow things to remain there. We are supposed to be protected from any misconduct on the part of police officers by a body called the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the IPCC).

In fact, as I was shortly to discover, this organisation is precisely set up in such a way as to protect police from complaints of misconduct made by the public.

In the aftermath of the drama at Winchester Police Station I wrote a letter to Chief Superintendent Derek Stevens, Head of Hampshire Constabulary’s Professional Standards Department. I pointed out to him that Rex Carpenter had failed to comprehend what my complaint was all about (i.e. the standard of the official investigation).

By way of reply Mr Stevens told me that my “complaint file” had been despatched to the IPCC (a body with which I was then unfamiliar) with a request that Hampshire Police should be given a “dispensation” from investigating it because, as he put it, my complaint was “Incapable of Investigation” (sic) and “an abuse of the complaints procedure.”

The fact that, as I stated, witnesses including a police officer, gave false statements and committed perjury did not, he said, constitute complaint about the conduct of a police officer according to the law. My position, of course, was not that it did. I was complaining about the failure of police officers to spot the obvious mendacity of the witness statements involved at the investigation stage even after I had pointed this out to the police themselves in repeated visits to Winchester Police Station prior to my trial!

So for Mr Stevens to respond, as he did, with the statement that all these matters could be assumed to have been “challenged at court” was to duck the issue. (Anyone reading this account will already be aware of how effectively these issues actually had been challenged in court). A neat way for the Old Bill to get off the hook, you might think.

Soon afterwards the IPCC came back with their own half dozen eggs. Surprise, surprise! “Taking all the circumstances into account” (really?), they granted Hampshire Constabulary their “dispensation” from having to deal further with my complaint.
Their reasons?

I’ve faithfully related everything that happened at Winchester Police Station when I met Rex Carpenter and his colleague for all of five to ten minutes before being chased from the premises.

Now here’s the version of that meeting the IPCC got, and I quote their judgement:

“The police have told us that on 24th September, 2004 you met with the Investigating Officer (Carpenter) and a Caseworker… The Investigating Officer is unable to proceed with investigations into your complaint, because you have not co-operated during that interview……”

“The police have also told us that during that interview, you were advised that it was not its function to investigate the courts or the CPS.”
(Perhaps the police also told the IPCC Casework Manager Davin Puttergill that the Moon is made of green cheese, Santa comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve, and the Easter Bunny brings chocolate eggs to all the good little girls and boys. Must be true then!)

As for Rex Carpenter telling me about the courts and the CPS being outside the police’s province this is pure fantasy. No such subject was ever touched on in our conversation – for as long as it lasted. All I got was a lecture on what a wonderful officer WPC Brown 3298 was.

I’ve described the kind of hostility I experienced in the brief encounter with Rex Carpenter. Well, cop a load of this. Ms Puttergill says, “your hostility toward the police was directed at the Investigating Officer.” Somehow Carpenter’s hostility towards me has dropped out of the story, becoming miraculously transmuted into my “hostility” towards him. A bit of role reversal here.

“As a consequence,” concludes Ms Puttergill in a triumphant flourish, “The Investigating Officer (Rex Carpenter) was not able to conduct a meaningful interview with you.”

Having nicely turned the truth on its head Ms Puttergill puts me nicely in my place with the following headmistressly admonition: “Your visits to the Winchester Police Station have been construed as disruptive.” Yes, disruptive to the dodgy prosecution case being put together by the likes of WPC Brown 3298 if they were to meet their monthly targets for successful convictions, desperately needed for the buncers and promotions and to make our local constabulary look as if they are protecting the safety of the public.

So Hampshire’s Finest got their “dispensation” from their mates at the IPCC on the basis, as they put it, that I offered “no reasonable assistance,” not quite the actualite, you might think.

What it amounts to is an incestuous little band of brothers and sisters unquestioningly taking up each other’s lies. Carpenter fibs to Stevens, who passes on the bunkum to Puttergill. What’s good enough for Carpenter is good enough for Stevens, and what’s good enough for Stevens is good enough for Puttergill. The lie becomes official truth.

At no stage did the IPCC inform me of what Carpenter and Stevens were telling them about the interview at Winchester Police Station and ask for my side of the story. I, after all, am not a member of their charmed circle. I’m just a benighted peasant (a.k.a. member of the paying public from whose taxes they get their fat salaries, expenses and pensions). My word counts for naught.

One could write a tome about the arrogance of power based on this one little case of mine.
I wasn’t prepared to lie down and die, as no doubt they would have liked. I persisted for a whole month in demanding a proper hearing. Finally I was granted a hearing of sorts with an Inspector Robertson.

LOVE STORY

Inspector Robertson was fulsome in his adulation of WPC Brown 3298. I was told how “nice” WPC Brown 3298 was at very great length. As will be evident this was not exactly my experience. Lying in court in defamation of myself, being as thick as thieves with the complainant in moments when the court was in recess with lots of extra loud laughing between them and malicious disrespect of myself throughout does not quite match up to my idea of niceness.

In any case Inspector Robertson was much more energetic in giving voice to his love of WPC Brown 3298 than in properly understanding my complaint. I mentioned a number of elements in the case that favoured me including the evidence of Ms Ryder-Smith and Pam Gillard.

Inspector Robertson replied irrelevantly that it was up to the CPS what evidence is chosen. My issue was whether the CPS had been informed of these statements that might have favoured my defence.

Are we dealing here with police not passing items of evidence to the CPS? Such selectivity and suppression would be a thoroughly dishonest way of inciting a prosecution by biasing the CPS view of a prospective defendant.

We might also add that making a false statement to police as the complainant did, alleging that I had sworn, is also an offence in itself. Inspector Robertson didn’t take this on either. He told me it was up to WPC Brown 3298 whether to treat the complainant’s falsehood in this regard as an offence.

Well, we know how she chose to carry on and to Inspector Robertson what was okay by WPC Brown 3298 was okay by him.

Maybe this was because, as he told me, she was such a fine officer with a bright career. Certainly, given what I know now, I can well believe that she meets all the standards of the modern British police service! The woman should go far.

Indeed, love is blind!

THREATENING BEHAVIOUR

Of course I kept up the pressure on the police. When Hampshire Constabulary tried to brush off my correspondence with an insulting little postcard format receipt instead of a reply I remonstrated once more with Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan.

In my new letter to him I pointed out the seriousness of his officers’ shortcomings, highlighting the shenanigans of WPC Brown in her conduct of my prosecution and those of Mr Stevens and the Professional Standards Department, and the mendacity pervading both.

This triggered a threat of legal action against me from the Force Solicitor, one Roger Trencher, who wrote that if I continued to call out the officers I had named he would “have to recommend that they take the necessary action to preserve their reputations.” (1st July 2005).
Raw nerves somewhere?

Anyway perhaps it is worth quoting my reply at some length since it highlights a few important issues in my case. I responded as follows (7th July 2005):-

“Dear Mr Trencher,

Thank you for your threatening letter of 1st July.

This is of a piece with the overbearing attitude I have encountered from Hampshire Constabulary from day one of my dealings with them.
Are you really telling me that police officers, public servants in a democracy in which we are supposed to have a right of criticism of those who fall short, whose salaries and pensions are paid from our very substantial taxes, can have recourse to the libel laws (which I presume is what your threats are about) in the event of their inadequacies being challenged?

Let me say that the facts of the case are not changed one iota by the [pro-police] ruling of the IPCC which took everything at face value. Further, I would add that nothing I say is personal against WPC Brown, Mr Stevens, et al. All of these people are conceivably part of the same culture of incompetence or worse that no doubt permeates the constabulary and its bureaucracy as a whole. It is quite conceivable that I would have received no better treatment from other officers. The man at the top, the Chief Constable, is no doubt ultimately responsible.

The fact remains that WPC Brown, for example, was quite prepared to make a false statement in court about my having to be “ordered” to attend Winchester police station (when, in truth, as she knows, I did so quite voluntarily, indeed unexpectedly), presumably in order to sink my reputation with the Judge. Mr Stevens seems to have found [her conduct] quite acceptable. Is it a case that anything goes against an accused person if it makes for a conviction?

The heavy handed attitude of the powers that be against me, including your own threats, is not being directed against some mafia chieftain but against a humble, poorly paid care assistant looking after senile dementia victims.

I hope you’re proud of yourselves.

Yours sincerely
Teresa Skelton”

Maybe somehow, somewhen Hampshire Constabulary might reform themselves. Pigs might fly. But I won’t be waiting up.
In the meantime perhaps this letter of mine can stand as the last word in my transactions with the Police.

ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CAN’T HELP YOU

As I’ve said, I don’t just take it on the chin when I suffer an injustice. Since the upholding of my conviction in Judge Boney’s court it’s been a long, grinding battle which I’ve taken right to the top of every organisation that exercises power over the criminal justice system in this country, and every institution that is supposed to protect us against its excesses and abuses.

It’s also been a process of enlightenment in as much as I have had a ringside seat observing the almost impenetrable inertia of our system in the face of injustice. I have been given a chance to see democracy in inaction probably granted to few people!

Let’s just start with some of our elected representatives, or would-be representatives. These are some of the very people who are boldly supposed to speak truth to power.

The outcome to all of this?

Surprise, surprise (yet again)! In the words of Ms Alison Scott (20th June 2011) as far as she and her boss were concerned the “subject matter to which you refer” was dealt with in 2004 “by the courts.” On her part Mrs Douglas-Todd shrugged me off by claiming that the
matters raised with Hampshire Police Authority were dealt with by Mr Pattison and they weren’t going to talk to me any more.
Two down, one to go! That left just Mr Brine in the ring.

I pointed out to him that we had now been cast back to square one. More déjà vu followed when Mr Brine now sent me an IPCC complaints form. I’d filled out a few of them over the years, so this time Steve Brine went direct to the Commission. I pointed out to him that my complaint had never been about being abused in custody because I was never in custody. As Hampshire Police themselves had informed my solicitors in early 2004, “there is no Custody Record”!

Finally, of course, as I could have told Mr Brine they would do, the IPCC dipped out. They came out with the tired old formula so favoured by bureaucrats that they had met all the legal requirements over my complaint. So their dispensation to Hampshire Constabulary was set in stone.

As far as he was concerned that was that.

All the M.P. had really done was bat the ball against the same brick walls I had been colliding with for years. He had stuck to formalities and gone through the motions. But, to revert to the original metaphor, all we had accomplished was to go round the same old mulberry bush of which I knew every leaf and spar.

THE COCKING UP THE RECORDS BUREAU. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, OR WHAT?

Nobody should underrate the possibility of malicious skulduggery behind your back. The Criminal Records Bureau maintains a record of the criminal convictions of everybody in Great Britain. When anyone goes for a new job it is open to their prospective employer to apply to the CRB for a disclosure form on which will be listed any such convictions. Many employers, especially in “sensitive” occupations, will do this.

Some years ago there was a public scandal when it emerged that the CRB was mixing up the criminal records of different individuals. People were suddenly discovering that their disclosures attributed to them all sorts of offences they had never committed.

Of course, all this was ascribed to “administrative incompetence” at the Bureau. Maybe.

But it is worth noting that the CRB record of each individual citizen is built up from information supplied by the Police. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that some of this was deliberate and motivated by a desire to “get” certain individuals?

Since there seems to be little scrutiny in these matters (checks and balances again) what would there be to stop malignant elements in our police from seeking to damage people in this way?

It might be of some interest to state that, at the height of my dispute with Hampshire Constabulary, an “Enhanced Disclosure” relating to me was issued by the CRB containing 11 offences. 10 of these were attributed to one Tracy Hatliff. The 11th had my name, Teresa Skelton, against it. It was my conviction of 9th June, 2004, the only conviction I have ever had. (See Appendix 7).

The disclosure form indicated that I was Hatliff and that my actual name was an alias! In other words I was a career criminal leaving a trail of terror across England, as far north as Harrogate, and even Germany (a conviction in Bielefeld in 1983, when I was actually a secretary in London, was shown). Ms Hatliff had apparently been doing everything from theft to GBH in all sorts of places I’ve never been to in my life.

It was only after a lot of time and trouble that I was able to get the record rectified leaving just the one (wrongful) conviction in place. Meanwhile who knows what damage this document could have done me had I not become aware of it?

Of course, perhaps all this was coincidental. Maybe the CRB bureaucrats and computers and the filing clerks and their bosses in Hampshire Constabulary really didn’t know their rump from their elbow and conflated Ms Hatliff’s identity with mine quite by accident. But maybe not.
As the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

Anyway, whatever the truth may be, just remember this. A conviction, however “trivial,” leaves a burden that lasts forever given the way CRB disclosure works. It can wreck all prospects of future employment. It can become a ball and chain clanking on your ankles for good.

Offenders can find themselves excluded from most jobs after conviction given what goes on their record. Just read the Public Order Act. The tone of the wording makes the lowest level offence sound almost like mass murder.

I, for instance, was found guilty of “disorderly behaviour or threatening/abusive/insulting words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” Any prospective employer or authorized scrutineer of a CRB record containing this who lacks legal knowledge and experience will have fifty fits reading these words, which might have been contrived to make the blood run cold.

And I didn’t even commit the crime.

BRITISH JUSTICE?

Not too long ago (2nd December 2013) I wrote to Judge Boney reminding him that he had fined me £355 over the use of a few words, even though the prosecution evidence was tainted.

His paedophile colleague, Judge David Selwood was convicted without any uncertainty of downloading child pornography and received a fine of £55 and a year’s probation.

I asked him whether he could explain why, in the eyes of the judiciary, my ill-founded conviction on a trivial charge deserved so much more severe punishment than Mr Selwood’s well-founded conviction on a serious one.

I added that I hoped this was not a case of judges letting other judges off the hook as he had the police in my case. The judicial system standing shoulder to shoulder against justice?

A joke indeed. A rather sick one if anything.

And make no mistake, it’s not just on me. It’s on all of us.

As for my challenge to this arch-spokesman for Big Brother, I still await a reply.

For more evidence click HERE