British Justice ?

The Official Complaints Process

There are many organizations and agencies that are supposed to oversee and regulate the various components of the Criminal Justice System. None of them work. They are all boondoggles, designed to waste the tax payer's money paying the salary of arrogant bureaucrats that have no interest in truth or justice, and are part of the very corrupt system that they are supposed to regulate. They will never willingly criticize, much less punish, the people and organizations that they are supposed to police. Rather they see their job as frustrating any complaint, running the victim around in circles, lying to the victim, outright refusing to communicate, wearing the victim down until they go away and leave the corrupt system in peace to assault the next victim.

Defilee of Complaint Correspondence Sorted by Organization

Complaints were filed with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary, Group 4 Securicor (G4S), the General Medical Council (GMC) Fitness to Practice Directorate, Burlington Primary Care, the local Member of Parliament Richard Bacon MP, and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The results are shown here:

Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service has a well defined and speedy process for dealing with complaints. The complainant is allowed to send two letters of complaint, and will receive two response letters. If this very limited correspondence fails to address the issues raised, then the matter will not be resolved. It is of course quite easy to stall and evade the issue for two letters if they have no intention of addressing the issue.

My first letter was routed to David Taylor, the District Crown Prosecutor responsible for prosecutions in the Norwich Crown Court. His one response letter failed to adequately address the issues raised, and so I escalated the complaint to “Phase 2”. My second letter was routed to Frank Ferguson, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. Both these letters are provided below. My interpretation of these letters is that the writers are defending the actions of CPS no matter what, and refuse to admit any mistakes. By refusing to engage in any further discussion they willfully prevent any challenge or rebuttal of their position. In summary: They state that they are right and that is the end of the matter.

I have provided copies of these letters here on this website. I have redacted only personally identifiable information. Although I am concerned that the reader may be taken in by the smooth spin doctoring written by these professionals in the field, nonetheless I feel that they should be given equal opportunity to present their side of the case. I will not stoop to the treatment that I received at their hands, they would not allow me to rebut them in the court room.

Mr. Frank Ferguson states in his letter that not only does the Crown Prosecution Service refuse to prosecute Kevin Miles now, but also threatens that if I were to commence a private criminal prosecution of Kevin Miles they would take over the case and shut it down. Why is that? Because they don't want to get egg on their faces. Just think how professionally embarrassing it would be if CPS charges and prosecutes the victim of a crime instead of the perpetrator, looses the case, and then the victim successfully obtains a conviction against the true perpetrator whom CPS were treating as the victim?

Let us examine in more detail the decisions to prosecute me, and not to prosecute the offender: The Crown Prosecution Service has a published policy of basing it’s decision to prosecute on a two stage test. The first stage is called the evidential stage, the second is called the public interest stage. I will quote from the CPS website so you can hear their policy in their own words:

The evidential stage

This is the first stage in the decision to prosecute. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge. They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A “realistic prospect of conviction” is an objective test. It means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. (This is a separate test from the one that criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only convict if it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.) If the case does not pass the evidential stage, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.

The public interest stage

If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both stages.

What was the evidence against me? What was the evidence against Kevin Miles? Was the evidence that I had attacked Kevin Miles any stronger or weaker than the evidence that Kevin Miles had attacked me?

• Kevin Miles ran to a passing car and begged the occupant, an old lady, to protect him by letting him inside her car. That old lady called the police.
• I went to the nearest police station and made a report. My report was made within 10 minutes of the incident.
• The old lady told the police that Kevin Miles told her that I had attacked him with a knife. She also told the police that Kevin Miles was shaking and obviously very scared.
• Kevin Miles had a small scratch on his finger, about the severity of a paper cut. He got that when he was pushed into a hedge. The scratch was inconsistent with Kevin Miles’ version of events.
• The old lady made a written report on the day of the incident in which she stated that when she arrived on the scene she had a clear view of both Kevin Miles and myself. She said that she did not see an assault and did not see a knife.
• The police searched me and did not find a knife. They searched my home, and found three folding pocket knives. One of these was a very small penknife that my parents had bought for me when I was a child. It was a souvenir of a holiday that we took together as a family. It was in a small leather case engraved as a souvenir item. It’s blade was about 2 inches long. There were two other pocket knives in my home. Kevin Miles had alleged that I attacked him with a folding knife. All the knives in my home were lawfully possessed and had never been used in any crime.
• The Crown Prosecutor told the court that the police were conducting a series of complicated and expensive forensic tests on the knives that they had taken from my home. On several occasions they cited the complexity of these tests as justification for delaying my trial. After 12 weeks they told the court that they had no forensic evidence to support their case. They were enthusiastic to spend large amounts of taxpayer’s money when they thought that might lead to evidence against me.
• Kevin Miles had attacked me on a previous occasion in the company of approximately 10 friends and family members. The police refused to interview these people or witnesses to this previous attack. The police and Crown Prosecution Service were unwilling to expend even minimal effort to find evidence in my favour.
• The Police refused to search the homes of Kevin Miles or other members of his gang who may have been involved in removing the knife from the scene. Thus the police willfully suppressed evidence that the gang removed the knife from the scene. If two or more people destroy evidence they have conspired to pervert justice. Since conspiracy to pervert justice is a more serious offence than ABH or knife possession the police have willfully refused to investigate a serious crime in favour of pursuing a lesser crime. The police did this in support of their own agenda. The police behaviour is itself perversion of justice.
• Kevin Miles stated that the scratches on his neck were caused by my fingernails. If I had a knife, why use my fingernails? Would it not be so much more effective to plunge the knife into his neck?

So, what does it mean to say that a prosecution is not in the “public interest”? Who are the “public” in this context? Does “public” mean the general public, the citizenry, the average reader of this website? Or, is “public” another code word, Orwellian Doublespeak used to disguise the true meaning of a phrase, and to make it sound more palatable? Governments often refer to themselves as “the people”, especially in the title of criminal proceedings. Could it be that “public” in this case means “The Crown Prosecution Service”? Are they really saying that to prosecute Kevin Miles is not in the best interests of CPS? And why not? Because it would embarrass CPS to prosecute an offender that they have mollycoddled and treated as a victim for so long? Because it would embarrass CPS to admit that they have put an innocent victim in prison for 12 weeks, and caused that innocent victim great incidental damage in their life, business, and finances? In the words of my barrister, because they would “get egg on their faces”? But, is it in the best interests of the general public to have a Crown Prosecution Service that values their own image above justice? Dear reader, is it in your best interests to have such a powerful government agency so lacking in professional courage, indeed so deeply instilled with moral cowardice, as to engage in such a cowardly cover-up rather than to admit their mistake and endeavour to make it right?

In any event, the charges against Kevin Miles would be identical to the charges that the Crown Prosecution Service made against me, plus the additional charge of perverting justice. If it is in the “public interest” to prosecute me, then how can it not be in the “public interest” to prosecute Kevin Miles for the exact same offences? Or are some more equal than others? The crime of perverting justice is a much more serious offence, carrying a potential life sentence. Since an innocent person was sent to prison as a result of Kevin Miles’ lies, the sentence imposed upon him should rightly be towards the high end of the sentencing guidelines. The seriousness of Kevin Miles’ offences make it even more in the public interest to prosecute him than it was to prosecute me. To fail to prosecute Kevin Miles now sends a clear message that making false accusations is condoned by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Frank Ferguson states in his letter that I did not tell my version of events when given the chance. That is not true. I tried many times to tell my side of what had happened that day. The police refused to listen. They made it very clear that they had no interest in the truth. Eventually I was worn down by their intransigence, and so I decided not to answer any further questions. My lawyer, arranged for by the police, told me to conduct a “no comment” interview.

Frank Ferguson dismisses my complaint about his failing to treat me as the victim by stating that as I had been charged I was not considered to be the victim. This is circular logic: He is using his earlier mistake in charging the victim instead of the perpetrator to justify his continued ongoing treatment of the victim as if they were the perpetrator. Since he now has all the evidence, and has dropped the case because the evidence does not support his charges, he should discontinue treating the victim as if they were the perpetrator. He should also cease pandering to the real offender, Kevin Miles, as if he were the victim.

Frank Ferguson has stated that the evidence of the passer-by was not hearsay as Kevin Miles told her that I had attacked him immediately after the incident. This short time delay allows an exception to the hearsay rule. This only means that the Criminal Procedure Rules allow such evidence to be given in court. The evidence is not excluded because it is hearsay. However, it is still hearsay. The passer-by heard Kevin Miles say that I had attacked him. She is not adding her own credibility to Kevin Miles’ statement. The passer-by stated in writing, on the day of the incident, that she came upon the scene of the incident and saw no knife and no assault. She only heard Kevin Miles say that I attacked him, she did not see it for herself.

Frank Ferguson has completely failed to address the issue of the unidentified males that were observed attending Kevin Miles. Indeed I find Mr. Ferguson’s response to this item to be evasive. It was a key assertion upon which the prosecution’s case was based. It was also a key assertion used to justify arresting me and not arresting Kevin Miles. The police asserted that because Kevin Miles was never alone between the Frank Ferguson time of the incident and the arrival of the police he could not have disposed of his knife. However, the passer-by, Rosemary Ann Steer, stated that after she allowed Kevin Miles into her car she left the scene to walk to the police station. At that time Kevin Miles was indeed alone, and had opportunity to throw the knife. When Rosemary Steer returned to the scene she found Kevin Miles in the company of two males. These mysterious males were never identified. They could easily have been members of Kevin Miles’ gang, family, or friends. Kevin Miles could have handed his knife to them. Moreover, any number of other unidentified accomplices could have arrived on the scene and left with the knife during the time that Rosemary Steer was away from the scene. Indeed, why would anyone other than Kevin Miles’ family and friends stop to assist him? If you were walking along the sidewalk and saw a complete stranger sitting in the back of a parked car, would you stop to talk to them? However, if you chanced upon a family member or friend sitting in the back of a parked car then of course it would be natural to stop and ask them what was happening. Kevin Miles admitted in a written statement that he used his cell phone to call his family for backup. So, dear reader, what is your guess? Who do you think these unidentified males might have been? The police failed to maintain a sterile crime scene, and have sought to make inappropriate and clearly flawed inferences.

Frank Ferguson also states that a Restraining Order will prevent further incidents. How can that be? They have put the restraining order on the wrong person. The offender is not the subject of the order, so how does the order restrain the offender? So, is the restraining order intended to restrain the victim? How is that supposed to work? If the victim is attacked with a knife are they expected to just stand there and allow the offender to stab them repeatedly because the restraining order prohibits them from defending their body or their life? Obviously that won’t work; the victim must defend themselves without regard to any court order. No restraining order can force a victim to suppress their survival instinct. No restraining order can force a victim to commit suicide for the court’s amusement. The true purpose of the restraining order is to give the Crown Prosecution Service an easy victory in their contrived case against the victim next time the victim is attacked. Remember, dear reader, the three points upon which the CPS base all their actions: Maximize the points in the win column, minimize the points in the loss column, minimize the effort.

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

The rôle of IPCC thus far has been to send all complaints on to the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary. They have not provided any independent investigation whatsoever, and indeed refuse to get involved. It is hard to see how their budget paid for from public funds, or indeed their very existence, can be justified.

A particularly enlightening email from Melanie O'Connor, a Casework Administrator at IPCC, states that the Norfolk Constabulary has “decided that it is the correct organisation to consider your appeal”. In other words the police have the power to insist that they investigate themselves. Melanie O'Connor goes on to say that statute law imparts this power upon the police. Specifically she cites (sic) “Regulation 30 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012.. The law Paragraph 31(1) Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.” So, now we know that statute law renders IPCC irrelevant. Who is responsible for creating a statute law that renders IPCC a useless irrelevant waste of the public's money? Well, that would be the lawmakers, otherwise known as Members of Parliament.

Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary

I initially sent my complaint to IPCC. They in turn passed it on to the Professional Standards Department of the Metropolitan Police in London, even though it was made very clear to them that the case involved the Norfolk Constabulary. After some further confusion they passed it on to the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary. They acknowledged receipt of my complaint, and committed to provide updates on their investigation every 28 days.

Two whole months went by with no progress, and so I followed up with the Norfolk Constabulary. They ignored my letter, and so I wrote again to IPCC. I was then given the runaround for many months. They told me that some parts of my case were assigned to different people in different departments. When I tried to contact these people they ignored my correspondence until I filed additional complaints with IPCC regarding their refusal to communicate. There were several iterations of re-complaining to IPCC when communication with the Norfolk Constabulary was lost. My case was frequently reassigned to new personnel, who then promptly went on annual leave. Eventually my case was assigned to Mr. Alan Swain, a Case Investigator with the Professional Standards Department. He then immediately went on annual leave. Because of the earlier correspondence informing me that the investigation of my case was divided among several people and departments I tried to get clarification as to whether or not Mr. Swain was handling all aspects of my case. Eventually I was informed that he was.

The runarounds continued. I had to chase after status updates that were promised and not delivered. Often the response to asking for an update was annual leave. I am including here some of the correspondence so that the reader can see for themselves the obstacles that a victim must face when complaining to the Norfolk Constabulary.

Rebuttal of Alan Swain's Report

This section addresses the report produced by Alan Swain of the Professional Standards Department. The report itself can be read by clicking on the link above. The rebuttal will probably make more sense if the report itself is read first.

The Professional Standards report was finally produced 15 months after the incident. It fails to address the issues raised. There is no “investigation”, Alan Swain merely asks the police officers for their version of events, and then accepts their version without question. The report is self contradictory and evasive. It willfully misinterprets evidence.

It is useful to examine the techniques that the Criminal Justice System uses to handle complaints. The System splits itself into multiple fragments, pretending that they are independent. Each fragment is “investigated” separately. Each fragment under investigation then points the finger at other fragments that are not the subject of the current investigation. This is done between agencies (Police/CPS/Prison/Courts), between Police departments (patrol/custody/CID/G4S), and between individual officers within a department. By utilizing the techniques of refusing to address the behaviour of the entire system, insisting on considering only a subset of the system in any one investigation, and pointing the finger of blame at another system component not the subject of the current investigation, the System can always engineer an evasion of the issues. In reality these fragments are not in any way independent entities, they are all façades of the same underlying system.

Throughout the report there is a concerted attempt to create confusion between the concept of allowing me to file a criminal complaint about my attacker, and the concept of me stating my version of events at interview. To any system insider these are very different concepts, like night and day. To an outsider they are easily confused. The police seek to exploit this layman's confusion to their advantage. To this day the police refuse to accept a crime report from me despite numerous attempts to make such a criminal complaint.

This professional standards “Investigation” was an utter waste of public funds. It has achieved nothing of any value to either the victim, or to society at large. It leaves the original problem intact. The only winners here are a corrupt and broken System, and its employees who will continue to draw a salary for hurting the innocent, helping the offenders, and lying to conceal their own incompetence.

The Police Take Groceries from a Pensioner and Refuse to Return Them

Alan Swain has admitted that police officers took my groceries. He refuses to return them or pay financial compensation. He says that the groceries may have been given to the rental car company, and that my course of action is to sue Avis Rental Cars. He asserts that it is not a police matter. Avis Rental Cars took no active role in this theft; The actions were performed by the police. Why would my course of action be against Avis? The police are trying to make trouble for an innocent bystander in order to deflect the rightful claim against themselves. This is dumb insolence on the part of the police. It is moral cowardice.

PC Rout denies that any items were “seized” from my car, and denies seeing any groceries. PS Oldmeadow admits that there were groceries in my car. They assert that the car was returned to the rental company. Even as late as July 2013 the car rental company was still contacting me to ask what happened to their car.

The police forcibly took my groceries against my wishes, and have willfully deprived me of my groceries to this day. What they did with my groceries is of no relevance. Whether they ate my groceries or threw them away is irrelevant. Whether or not they gave my groceries to a third party who in turn ate my groceries or threw them away is irrelevant. Whether any such third party is the car rental company, or friends of the police officers involved, is irrelevant. When a thief takes property without consent it is not a defence to state that they have given that property away to a third party. All that matters here is that the police forcibly took my property without consent, and continue to this day to deprive me of my lawfully possessed property. If the police object to the use of the word “seized”, perhaps because it has some narrow jargon meaning for them, then by all means let us use a different term; Let us describe the police taking my groceries as “strong arm robbery”. If they gave my groceries to some third party then the police are “handling stolen goods”. Although some of the groceries were perishable, some were canned goods and not perishable. In any event I have suffered the loss of my property because of the police actions. I demand that my groceries be returned to me, or financial compensation paid.

Sergeant Oldmeadow

PS Oldmeadow states that he was given information that I had returned home. Other police officers have also referred to a witness stating that I returned home. Nowhere in any of their reports have they named this secret witness. I ask that they identify this secret witness now.

PS Oldmeadow states that the car and groceries were taken from me because I was sectioned under the mental health act. This is the first mention I have heard of any such sectioning under the mental health act. If PS Oldmeadow's testimony is true then the law requires that I be taken to a hospital. This was not done. Also, if PS Oldmeadow's testimony is true then the subsequent interview was unlawful. In the alternative, if PS Oldmeadow has fabricated his testimony regarding a sectioning under the mental health act, then his behaviour is unacceptable. A police officer should keep accurate notes, and provide accurate testimony when called upon to do so.

PS Oldmeadow states that an additional reason for taking the car and groceries from me was that I had hired the car under another name which was not my true identity. Once again PS Oldmeadow is contradicting the testimony of both himself and other police officers. The police have the car rental contract in their possession, and so they know the name under which the car was hired. That is the same name that the police have asserted is my true identity. Thus the police know that the rental car was hired under my true identity. Thus PS Oldmeadow's statement to the contrary is proven to be a willful lie.

The public have a right to expect honesty and integrity from the police. The public have a right to expect the police to give truthful testimony, and not to fabricate testimony as suits their purposes at the time.

PC Rout

PC Rout states that the arrest was “lawful for ABH assault which we had a positive allegation for from Kevin Miles”. However, she also admits to having a positive allegation for assault from myself. Thus the decision to arrest was biased: I was arrested and Kevin Miles was not, although both of us had made allegations of ABH assault. This arrest was therefore not lawful: It was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, and contrary to the published police policies on counter accusations.

The independent witness that PC Rout refers to is now know to be Rosemary Ann Steer. She stated at the time of the incident that she did not see an assault and did not see a knife. She also repeated this statement in writing. Rosemary Ann Steer did not state at any time that I had returned home. She did not even know where I lived, and thus could not possibly know if I had returned home. Thus PC Rout's version of events is disproved.

PC Rout states that I was “sectioned after interview”. What does she mean by this? Is she alleging that I was sectioned under the mental health act as PS Oldmeadow has claimed? If so procedure was not followed as a mental health determination must be made prior to interview. Elsewhere in the report the police have claimed that my mental health was evaluated by Dr. Dean Dorsett prior to interview. If I was indeed sectioned under the mental health act, or even if mental health concerns were voiced, then the interview was unlawful.

I was forced to sign the documents in order to save items of immense sentimental value that were being held hostage by the police/CPS under threat of destruction. There was no explanation of any disclaimer given to me, nor would it have had any bearing on the situation if it was: Hostage taking cannot be mitigated by a disclaimer. PC Rout also seeks to cause confusion by interchangeably referring to the documents that I was forced to sign at Crown Court, and the documents that she presented to me on my doorstep. These facts are clearly documented, and thus PC Rout's statement is proven to be incorrect.

It is never acceptable for any façade of the criminal justice system, whether police, CPS, courts, prison, or any other component of the criminal justice industry, to extort confession or compliance by means of coercion, torture, kidnapping, or hostage taking.

Justification for Search of My Home

The report refers to several witnesses who have not been identified. Secret evidence and secret witnesses are not acceptable. They should have been disclosed to my defence team. I ask that they be identified now. In particular, I ask that the police now provide the following:

1. State clearly if the passer by, Rosemary Ann Steer, stated that I had gone home, or merely stated that I had walked into town?
2. Identify the “relative” mentioned on page 15 ?
3. Identify any other witness that stated that I had gone home ?

For example, near the bottom of page 17, PS Oldmeadow is quoted as saying that there was information that I had returned home. The next sentence states that I was seen walking into town, and that The Thoroughfare is near Redenhall Road. This sounds very sketchy. Is this the strength of the inference that I returned home? The part of Redenhall Road where I live is nowhere near The Thoroughfare. Is this the sum total of the witness statement relied upon by PS Oldmeadow?

By the top of the following page, page 18, Inspector Oliver is quoted as saying that “a witness has stated that the D/P has returned home”. I ask that the police identify this witness. Is it still Rosemary Ann Steer? If so her witness statement appears to be changing little by little every time the police tell this story. Is this the only witness statement that I returned home? Why does this witness statement morph incrementally on each telling to support the police position?

On page 15 the report states “Kevin Miles had also done the same as had a relative”. Who is this relative? Did they claim to be at the scene? If not, how are they a witness? If they are a relative, how can they be considered independent? If it was someone that Kevin Miles called on his cellphone then why did the police not consider it evidence in support of my allegation that Kevin Miles was calling members of his gang for a beat down on me as they did during the previous attack? Why would Kevin Miles call a relative for help instead of calling the police when he is so close to a police station?

On page 17 Alan Swain states that he has reviewed the “crime file”, and that “there was a witness who gave some information which indicated that Mr. [Redacted] may have returned home but did not wish to provide a statement”. I ask that the police identify this witness. I ask that the police provide me a copy of the “crime file”. I ask that the police explain why their sentence is so dense in wiggle words: Why say “may have returned home”: Did any witness claim that they had seen me return home? I ask for a clear, unambiguous, answer.

Why Do the Police Still Refuse to Accept My Crime Report Now?

Throughout the report numerous police staff have referred to my clearly stated wish to file a criminal complaint that Kevin Miles attacked me with a knife. After my arrest PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow told me that I could make my criminal complaint at Bury PIC. It is now known that they lied: I attempted to make my complaint at Bury PIC, but they refused to accept my complaint. The fact that I made a no comment interview is irrelevant. I was told to do this by a solicitor provided by the police. I was denied a lawyer during interview. All that is relevant from the interview at Bury PIC is that Trevor Eagle and Steven Warby told me that I could not make a crime report at that time, but that I could make a crime report upon my release at any police station. Since they clearly stated that they would not accept my crime report during the interview, the fact that I said nothing has no relevance whatsoever. I did attempt to make such a report to PC Tim Tyler at Harleston police station after my release, but he refused to accept my report. Thus Trevor Eagle and Steven Warby had lied.

PS Andrew Mallet has stated “it would have been improper for a counter allegation to have been taken by the police whilst he was being dealt with as a suspect”. He further cements his position by stating “He was charged with matters that would tend to indicate the evidence available supported the police prosecution”. In other words the initial error in charging the victim justifies refusing to look at evidence that would reveal this charge to be inappropriate. The error justifies the error. PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow knew that I would be labeled a suspect from the instant of my arrest, so they knew even then that I would not be permitted to make a crime report. Thus they lied to me. Indeed it is now clear that all the police officers knew all along that they would not accept a crime report from me, and had all been lying to me from the very beginning. The police arrested the victim, and to avoid the embarrassment of admitting their mistake they instead used their mistake to justify their refusal to take a crime report from the victim.

In any event I still want to make a crime report that I was attacked in the street with a knife by Kevin Miles. All of the fabricated excuses put forward by the police have now evaporated. So, why do the police still refuse to accept my complaint even now? I am no longer in custody, so that excuse has evaporated. I was acquitted of the attack, so I can no longer be considered the offender. All parties agree that there was a knife attack. All parties agree that either I did it or Kevin Miles did it. The court has acquitted me, so the only remaining possibility is that Kevin Miles did it. I demand that Kevin Miles be arrested and charged now.

Policy on Counter-Accusations

The report includes the policy on counter accusations. The report contains admissions that clearly demonstrate that the policy was not followed. The report then goes on to assert that the policy was followed, even in blatant self contradiction.

Some deviations from policy (not an exhaustive list) are:

1. Failed to record Kevin Miles' prior history of verbal threats to the victim
2. Failed to record Kevin Miles' prior history of physical assaults upon the victim
3. Failed to record prior multiple assailant attack upon the victim by a gang of which Kevin Miles is a member
4. Failed to record that I acted defensively.
5. Did not take sufficient care to avoid recording a crime that did not occur
6. Failed to obey the clearly stated policy: “counter allegations require investigation to establish the primary aggressor”.
7. Failed to take notice of the stated policy: “the investigation must be conducted before making any/any further arrests”.
8. Failed to classify injuries to Kevin Miles as trivial.
9. Failed to classify injuries to Kevin Miles' neck as consistent with restraining him, and not consistent with seeking to cause him injury.
10. Failed to analyze the comparative injuries to the parties involved.
11. Willfully suppressed evidence of previous multiple assailant attacks. This rises to the level of perversion of justice, and conspiracy to pervert justice.

Website / Medical Interrogation

The website that Dr. Dean Dorsett interviewed me about was “corrinasjewellerybox.com”. I did not create that website. I had no connection whatsoever with that website. I had no knowledge of the existence of that website prior to Dr. Dorsett's Interrogation. How is interrogating me about a website that I had no connection to whatsoever in any way relevant to my mental health?

It is clear that the motive of the police in interrogating me about that website was to connect me to the website in order to prosecute me for creating it. It also demonstrates quite extreme levels of incompetence both on the part of the police, and Dr. Dean Dorsett. It is a blatant violation of United Nations Resolution and international law.

The website in question was traced to a Mr. Ian Roy Durrands, a resident of Felixstowe. He was arrested in February 2013, and forced to shutdown his website. He was charged in June 2013, and his case progressed through the Magistrates Court and was committed to Crown Court in September 2013 under docket number T20137134. The police know this, and therefore their behaviour in continuing to link this website to me is a deliberate willful lie.

The police have attempted to justify interrogating me about that website by claiming that it was a diagnostic test to determine if I was delusional. So, now we know that the diagnostic standard for insanity is a belief that the police are dishonest, corrupt and incompetent. The police assert that I should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act because they suspected that I had created a website that criticized them. Have other countries used this technique to suppress criticism? Well, yes they have: The Soviet Union used psychiatry as a tool to eliminate political opponents (“dissidents”) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted official dogma. It was common practice for that government to diagnose mental disorders in cases where people disagreed with leaders.

Terms of Reference

The “investigation” did not follow the terms of reference stated at paragraph 5. No attempt was made to interview witnesses to the multiple assailant attack. Indeed, there was no investigation at all of any aspects of the complaint, merely a blind acceptance of whatever version of events the police choose to utter. This is a serious case, involving conspiracy to pervert justice by serving police officers, violation of United Nations Resolution and international law, bias, human rights violation, and medical malpractice. Thus it is proportionate to conduct a thorough investigation. This was not done. The case was not progressed as quickly as possible; It was dragged out for 15 months even though no investigation was performed.

Police Deny Responsibility for 12 Weeks Imprisonment

The police blame the Court for imprisoning me for 12 weeks. They say that it was not their fault. This is dumb insolence. The Court would not have imprisoned me if the police had not arrested me. The Court would not have imprisoned me if the police had not charged me under their alternate façade called the Crown Prosecution Service. The Court would not have imprisoned me if the police/CPS had not lied in court, indeed regurgitating the perjured statements of Kevin Miles without proof, stating those lies as if fact, without even the qualifier of “alleged” or “accused”. The Court is not independent of the Criminal Justice System. The Court is itself just another façade of the same corrupt Criminal Justice System. There are no checks and balances here. I was not allowed to speak in my defence at any time during the 12 week ordeal. The Court was thus willfully ignorant of the facts of my case. The Court just did whatever the police/CPS asked of them, even denying bail without cause. The Court thus provides no protection to the public from the corrupt police/CPS. Thus the Court is itself just another co-conspirator in the imprisonment without trial of an innocent victim.

The police should exhibit the moral integrity to take responsibility for what they have done, and not hide behind finger pointing at other components of the Criminal Justice Industry. The British Criminal Justice System is as corrupt and dangerous as that of any rouge state on this planet.

Appeal and Rebuttal of Alan Swain's “investigation”

I have sent my appeal and rebuttal to Professional Standards by email and snail mail. I have also sent a copy to IPCC as well just in case they pretend they did not receive it. The content of my appeal is substantially identical to the preceding paragraphs. The only difference is the entity to whom the questions are addressed: For example, the phrase “the police” is replaced by “you”. For that reason it would serve no purpose to copy the actual document here.

Mrs. K. Walker

The appeal of Alan Swain’s “investigation” was conducted by Mrs. K. Walker. She described herself as a member of the “Senior Management Team”. She defines the scope of her “investigation” as being into Alan Swain’s work, and not into the original complaint. Since Alan Swain’s “investigation” was itself an investigation into the way the original investigation was handled, a meta-investigation, it follows that Mrs. Walker’s investigation is a meta-meta-investigation. This level of indirection serves no useful purpose. It merely gives the bureaucrats conducting these so-called “investigations” an excuse to avoid investigating the real issues. Instead they fixate on irrelevant points of procedure to mis-direct the reader’s attention.

Please be advised that the appeal process is to review the investigation into your complaint, not to re-investigate your complaint. - Mrs. K. Walker

The only “evidence” that Mrs. Walker considers are the statements made by the police officers themselves. Even then she is deliberately selective about which statements to use, carefully avoiding any statement that contradicts her agenda. She makes no attempt to conduct an independent investigation. Mrs Walker denies that Mr. Swain's report was self contradictory while clearly quoting self-contradictory statements from Mr. Swain's report. She clearly demonstrates that she is aware that Mr. Swain's report is self-contradictory, and thus Mrs. Walker's report is also self-contradictory and indeed disingenuous.

Counter Accusation against Kevin Miles

Mrs. Walker denies that Mr. Swain’s report creates confusion between the concept of me wanting to file a counter accusation against Kevin Miles, and me being asked during interview about Kevin Miles attacking me. Then Mrs. Walker herself, in her very same report, tries to create the exact same confusion. The fundamental issue here is whether or not I was permitted to file a crime report regarding the knife attack upon me by Kevin Miles. Alan Swain and Mrs. K. Walker have attempted to cause confusion about this point. Alan Swain asserted that I was asked in the interview questions about Kevin Miles assaulting me. This however is a totally different issue. Somebody unfamiliar with police procedure might assume that the purpose of the interview is to find the truth about what happened. However, that is not the case. The sole purpose of an interview under caution is to obtain evidence to convict the person being interviewed. There is no other purpose. If I were to say in interview that Kevin Miles attacked me that would not result in a crime report being recorded against Kevin Miles. At one point in her report Mrs. Walker appears to understand this distinction quite clearly. She says:

I conclude that the two matters that you refer to are not confused and the matter for which you have been interviewed, i.e. the alleged assault by you on Kevin MILES is quite separate from the issue of a counter allegation being made. - Mrs. K. Walker

Both Mrs. Walker and Mr. Swain quote Sgt. Mallet clearly stating that no crime report will be accepted from me while I am under investigation.

Sergeant Mallett states whilst under his care the d/p remained a suspect and it would have been improper for a counter allegation to have been taken by the police whilst he was being dealt with as a suspect. He was charged with matters which would have tended to indicate the evidence available supported the police prosecution. During his time period as Custody officer over the night period it would have again been inappropriate to have taken a counter allegation. - Mr. Alan Swain

But, at another point in his report, Mr. Swain asserts that I was told at the time of my arrest that I could make a counter accusation during interview.

Pc Rout states that she advised Mr [Redacted] that he was under arrest and that any counter allegations would be taken into consideration by the investigating/interviewing officer. The officer also advised him that there was an allegation being made against him and that he would be interviewed at Custody to establish his side of the incident. - Mr. Alan Swain

Mrs. Walker also clearly states, in her very same report, that I was allowed to make a counter allegation during interview.

You were given opportunity during the interview to make any counter allegation you wished to - Mrs. K. Walker

In respect of the counter allegation that you wish to make regarding being assaulted by Mr. Kevin MILES you were advised at the time of your arrest that this would need to be considered during the investigation and interview - Mrs. K. Walker

I have accused both Mrs. Walker and Mr. Swain of attempting to confuse these two issues. So, dear reader, are you confused yet?

There is a separate, but related, issue, as to whether or not not the published policies and procedures for handling counter accusations at the time of arrest were followed by PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow. Mr. Alan Swain includes these policies in his report. Indeed, he has copied and pasted them verbatim. Mr. Swain then describes the behaviour of PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow at the time of my arrest. Mr. Swain’s description makes it clear that the procedure was not followed. Mr. Swain then immediately asserts that the procedure was followed. Mrs. Walker has failed to follow up on Mr. Swain’s quite obvious evasion.

Medical Interrogation about Website

Dr. Dorsett interviewed me about a website that criticized the police. I had no connection whatsoever with that website. Prior to the interrogation I had never heard of that website, nor of the person that actually did create it. A few months later the person that actually did create that website was arrested, charged and their case committed to crown court. Alan Swain, and now Mrs. K. Walker, would have us believe that the motive for interrogating me about that website had nothing to do with collecting incriminating evidence linking me to that website, but was instead solely for the benefit of my mental health. So, Mrs. Walker, just how gullible do you believe my readers are?

Sectioning under Mental Health Act

So, am I insane? Well, not quite yet. But the police are working very hard to rectify that.

Both PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow stated to an official investigation that I had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In other words, they testified that I was adjudicated insane. Note, they were not stating an opinion. Their testimony was not that they thought I was insane. They were testifying to a fact. The fact that I had been ruled insane. This is an important distinction. PC Rout went on to elaborate that I was sectioned after interview at Bury PIC. Mr. Alan Swain quotes Sgt. Mallet as saying that the psych evaluation was conducted prior to the interview. It is unlawful to conduct an interrogation if I was insane.

Now, Mrs. Walker states in her report that I was never sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and indeed apologizes for the police officers saying that I was sectioned. Why the change? I believe that earlier it suited their purposes to say I was insane. When it was pointed out to them that this would render their interrogation unlawful they changed their story and said that I was never sectioned.

However, even if we believe the police version of events then PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow have both testified to an official investigation that I was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In other words, they both gave false testimony regarding important facts in the case. Then, later, they say that they were mistaken, and reverse their testimony on this important fact. Clearly PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow cannot be trusted to give accurate testimony. They are police officers, and thus should be held to a higher standard than the general public. They should keep accurate notes, and give reliable testimony when called upon to do so. Indeed, the testimony of police officers in court is often believed without question simply because they are police officers. Whether a suspect in a crime is sane or insane is an important point. Inaccurate testimony on this point should not be dismissed as a minor misunderstanding. Whether or not I was sectioned under the Mental Health Act is a fact, not an opinion. Facts should be stated accurately in testimony. But PC Rout and PS Oldmedow have failed to accurately testify to an important fact. Hopefully this will be taken into account by members of the jury in future court trials when appraising the reliability of testimony given by PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow. Their testimony should not be trusted. Mrs. Walker dismisses the false testimony of PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow in this, and several other matters, with the phrase: “it was the officer’s explanation and belief at that time”. So, this is the standard of testimony we can expect from the Norfolk Constabulary. Indeed, given the lackadaisical attitude of Mrs. Walker, a senior police manager, in dismissing this false testimony so lightly, the testimony of all police officers with Norfolk Constabulary should be regarded with skepticism in the future. It appears that this slack attitude with the truth is an institutional problem.

Secret Witnesses and Secret Evidence

A defendant accused of a crime has a right to face their accusers. In practical terms this means that they have the right to see all evidence brought against them, a right to challenge that evidence and a right to cross examine witnesses that give testimony against them. In the United Kingdom we should not be convicted by some Kangaroo Court based on secret evidence and anonymous witnesses. Nor should the police be permitted to make decisions that do profound damage to our lives based solely on unreliable secret evidence. The criminal justice system should be open and transparent.

The police have asserted that a secret unidentified witness told them that I went home after the incident. The police also referred to a statement made by a “relative” of Kevin Miles. They have refused to identify this relative.

You ask throughout the appeal documents who are the “secret witnesses” and “secret evidence” as you state that this is not acceptable. You also request the details of the “relative” referred to on page 15 of the invetigating officer’s report. I am not able to disclose this information to you as this does not form part of your complaint and it is personal data that you are not entitled to. - Mrs. K. Walker

Mrs. Walker gives one reason for withholding this information as “this does not form part of your complaint”. Well, yes it does form part of my complaint. The other reason Mrs. Walker gives for withholding this information is that I am not entitled to it. I suspect that the real reason that Mrs. Walker wishes to withhold the identity of the “secret witnesses” is because the “secret witnesses” do not exist. They were invented by the police to justify a search of my home.

You also ask for information regarding Rosemary STEER and what she witnessed, this forms part of the court case and has not been dealt with as part of the appeal. - Mrs. K. Walker

Well actually I did not ask what Rosemary Steer had witnessed, nor for any other information about her. I merely pointed out that she could not possibly have witnessed what the secret witness claimed to have witnessed, and thus Rosemary Steer could not possibly be the “secret witness”. What I actually asked was that the “secret witnesses” be identified. Also, Mrs. Walker states: “Unfortunately this person declined to make a statement and I cannot identify who this person is”. Rosemary Ann Steer did make a statement, and so Mrs. Walker’s statement rules out Rosemary Ann Steer as the secret witness.

Rental Car and Groceries

The details of the car and groceries are covered in detail in the next section, so I will not repeat all of the details here. Rather I will limit this section to Mrs. Walker’s report on this matter. The police say that they took my car because it was rented in a false name. However, the police have the rental contract, in my correct name, so they know that their assertion is untrue. Mrs. Walker dismisses this false testimony with her stock phrase: “it was the officer’s explanation and belief at that time”. This is a totally unacceptable standard for police officers giving testimony. Since Mrs. Walker is a senior police manager it is reasonable to conclude that it is the policy of the Norfolk Constabulary that their officers should be held to such a low standard of professionalism.

Mrs Walker states that “no items were seized from the car” and later “it is clear that none of your groceries were taken from the BMW by the police officers”. How is that “clear” Mrs Walker? Mr. Swain’s report quotes PC Rout as saying “After conducting the search I had to make direct contact with Avis … they arranged to collect the vehicle the following week … If there was anything in the vehicle then it would have gone with the hire company when they collected it”. So PC Rout has admitted taking my groceries and then recklessly abandoning my property while it was under her control. Even if PC Rout is telling the truth she is still liable for my loss. Or maybe she took the groceries for her own use, and feels that admitting to recklessly abandoning the groceries is a lesser crime. Why does Mrs. Walker state that it is “clear” that PC Rout didn’t take my groceries? Where is your evidence that makes this “clear” to you Mrs. Walker? Or do you just insert the word “clear” gratuitously to project the image that there is some evidence on which you base your conclusion Mrs. Walker? How is it clear to you, Mrs. Walker, that PC Rout didn’t take my groceries when PC Rout has testified to a formal investigation that she did indeed take my groceries? Indeed, let us ask a more general question: When the police conduct a search do they have any duty to protect the possessions of members of the public? Or is it acceptable for the police to recklessly destroy, or indeed steal, any property that they come across in their search, whether or not it is related to the evidence they seek?

Let us explore further the double talk written by Mr. Swain and Mrs. Walker: At one point the police say that they didn’t take my car, so they are not responsible for my groceries. Then they say that they took my car, but not the groceries contained within the car, because the “seizure” document doesn’t mention the groceries. Then they say that they gave the car and the groceries contained within it to the hire company, and that does not constitute “taking” my groceries. So, if the police search your home and see something they like, they can take it, but if they don’t fill out the “seizure” paperwork then they can say that they did not take it. For avoidance of doubt, Mrs. Walker, when I accuse your colleagues of “taking” my possessions I am not referring to the concept of “seizing” my property for use as evidence. I am referring to the much more general concept of taking my property against my wishes with the intent of permanently depriving me of my possessions. I think you know that distinction perfectly well Mrs. Walker. You are playing childish word games while the tax payers pay your salary. You are evasive and disingenuous.

Mr. Swain states in his report “Any dispute in respect of being compensated for the loss of the groceries is not a police matter”. However, Mr. S Girling, a legal officer acting on behalf of the head of legal services, states “In answer to your question regarding liability in this matter I would direct your attention to Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 which creates a liability on the Chief Constable for wrongful acts of constables i.e. it makes the Chief Constable vicariously liable for acts of his constables. Therefore, in plain terms in this particular case any allegation of loss will be the responsibility of Chief Constable of Norfolk to deal with.” So which is it Mrs. Walker? The police once again contradict themselves. But yet Mrs. Walker denies that the police reports are self-contradictory.

How much public money has been wasted on the salaries of these “investigators” and “senior police managers” in dreaming up reasons not to compensate an old man for his groceries that they stole. How much less would it have cost to compensate the old man so that he could buy replacement groceries?

Civil Court Proceedings against PC Rout for Theft of Groceries

At the time of my arrest I had some groceries in my rental car. These groceries went missing while my car was under the control of the police. In fact the entire car has gone missing. The Diss police claim that they returned the rental car to AVIS, although, even to this day, AVIS deny getting their car back. AVIS told me that they had made a stolen car report to the Metropolitan Police, even though I told them that the Diss police had the car. Although several years have now elapsed, the combined efforts of the British police have been unable to locate the car. In any event, the car is not my concern. I am only concerned with my groceries that were taken from me by force.

The groceries were my property. They were lawfully possessed. The police had no right to take these groceries from me and permanently deprive me of my property. Thus I included the theft of my groceries as one of my complaints to Professional Standards. In his report of the Professional Standards investigation Mr. Alan Swain stated very clearly that the theft of my groceries was “not a police matter”. I disagree with Mr. Swain on this point. However, I reasoned that if Mr. Swain is correct, that it is not a police matter, then PC Rout, et al, must not have been acting in the role of police officers when they took my groceries. They can't have it both ways. Indeed there is a principle in civil law that formalizes my reasoning. That is the principle of Collateral Estoppel. Essentially a legal doctrine that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If a party makes an assertion, and derives a benefit from that assertion, then they cannot subsequently make the opposite assertion and derive benefit from that assertion also. In this case it means that if the police are not responsible for the theft of my groceries because it is “not a police matter”, then PC Rout cannot say in her defence that she is not personally responsible because she was acting in her role as a police officer. Mr. Alan Swain pulled that rug out from under her.

Since PC Rout was acting as an individual member of the public, and not as a police officer, when she “caused my groceries to be lost” I decided to issue a claim in civil court for compensation for my loss. As required by Pre-action Protocol I began by sending her a “Letter of Claim”. This letter, and all subsequent correspondence on this matter, can be viewed by clicking the link at the bottom of this section. My motive in filing this law suit was not just about getting compensation for my groceries, but also exposing the obstructive arrogance of Mr. Alan Swain.

I received a response from Jonathan Mott stating that he would have “conduct of this matter on behalf of the Chief Constable and his insurers”. I replied to Mr. Mott expressing surprise that a lawyer representing the Chief Constable was defending the case when the Chief Constable was not a party to the case. I reminded him that the defendant was Louise Mary Rout, a member of the general public. I expressed concern that the use of Norfolk Constabulary resources to defend a case that they were not a party to was an abuse of public funds. I asked Mr. Mott if the involvement of Norfolk Constabulary lawyers meant that the police were now conceding that this was a “police matter”, and that Alan Swain was wrong.

I then received a response from Stephen Girling, stating that he had taken over the case from Jonathan Mott. His letter stated: “I have now been given responsibility for the conduct of this matter on behalf of the Chief Constable of Norfolk and his insurers.”. He asked me to prove that the value of my groceries was £60 as I had claimed. He demanded that I produce a “bank statement showing the purchases made or the corresponding cash withdrawal”. I responded that I paid for my groceries with cash. There would be no correlation between the amount paid for the groceries and any bank withdrawals since I would have obtained an amount of cash to cover many days expenses, and in any event, I would not know the exact cost of my groceries until I reached the checkout lane, and so I could not have withdrawn the exact amount even if I wanted to. I pointed out to Mr. Girling that I did get a cash register receipt for my groceries, but that was in the bags with my groceries in the rental car. The police officers that took my car, and my groceries, thus also took my receipt. The police had thus destroyed the evidence of the value of my groceries. It is unconscionable that the police should derive a benefit from willfully destroying evidence. I arrived at the value of £60 as a typical sum that I pay on a visit to the grocery store, and on the low end of the range so that any error would be in favour of his client.

Mr. Girling then responded stating: “I can find no evidence to support your allegation that Pc Rout took groceries from your hire car”. Well, the evidence is in the statements that PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow made to the Professional Standards investigation, and published in Alan Swain's report. Mr. Girling goes on to say: “at no point did police officers take your groceries into police possession”. Well they took the entire car containing the groceries into police possession. Thus I find Mr. Girling’s position to be quite perverse. Mr. Girling then goes on to say: “The responsibility for this property remained, at all times, yours”. How could I protect my groceries? I was handcuffed, and in the back of a police car. How can I physically prevent the police from stealing my groceries? Mr. Girling is trying to suggest that it was my fault that my groceries were stolen, that I was reckless with the safety of my groceries. If it is so reckless for a member of the public to leave their groceries locked in their car, parked in the parking lot of a police station, within 50 feet of the door of the police station, and surrounded by police officers, and expect that their groceries would not be stolen, what does that tell use about the level of honesty that we should expect from police officers?

Mr. Girling then goes on to accuse me of renting the car under a false name. This is a blatant deliberate lie. The police have the rental contract in their possession. They know what name it was rented in. And they know my name. And thus they know that the car was rented in my correct name.

Mr. Girling then goes on to state: “In answer to your question regarding liability in this matter I would direct your attention to Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 which creates a liability on the Chief Constable for wrongful acts of constables i.e. it makes the Chief Constable vicariously liable for acts of his constables. Therefore, in plain terms in this particular case any allegation of loss will be the responsibility of Chief Constable of Norfolk to deal with”. In other words Mr. Alan Swain was wrong to state that this was “not a police matter”. Mr. Girling further states: “Any statements made by Mr Swain will have to be referred to him for comment.” I did indeed contact Alan Swain and told him that his colleague Mr. Girling had contradicted him on his assertion that it was “not a police matter”. I invited Mr. Swain to rebut. He chose to ignore my email.

Ultimately I chose not to issue the court proceedings. My experience with the system has taught me that no matter how strong is the evidence in my favour, and no matter how correct my arguments on points of law, the system will never allow me to win. The financial costs of proceeding would greatly exceed the £60 claimed. But at least Mr. Swain now knows that it is “a police matter”, and that I don't have any confidence in his so called investigation.

The Norfolk Constabulary spent far more of the taxpayer's money on paying the salary of their lawyers to fight an old man than it would have cost them to pay for some replacement groceries for that old man.

Compliance and Disclosure Unit

I asked the police to provide me with a copy of the high resolution colour photograph of Kevin Miles' finger showing the alleged knife wound. Currently they have only provided a low resolution black and white photograph that has been degraded by many generations of photocopying to the point that it is difficult to see the alleged knife wound. The low-res version is displayed elsewhere on this website. I know that the hi-res colour version of this photograph exists as I have seen it during my interview at Bury PIC. It clearly shows the wound shape and depth, from which it is possible to deduce the direction, force and shape of the instrument that caused the wound. This photograph contradicts the story told by Kevin Miles and the police as to how the wound was caused. I need this photograph for these reasons:

• For my investigation into the conduct of the criminal justice system in this matter
• For an intended private criminal prosecution of Kevin Miles for attacking me with a knife, and for perverting justice

My initial request for the photograph was sent to Alan Swain. He then told me that this was not in his remit, and referred me to John McGuire:

There was subsequently correspondence between myself and John McGuire both by email and snail mail. Mr. McGuire raised a series of objections to providing me with a copy of this photograph. These included, inter alia:

• That I pay for the copy. I agreed to pay the amount he requested
• That I provide an explanation of how this information is necessary for the proceedings
• That I provide an explanation of how the proceedings would be prejudiced if I was denied the photographs
• I must provide a confirmation that I do not already have the information (if I already had it then how would there be any privacy breach in giving me another copy?)
• That I provide an explanation of why I don't just serve a Witness Summons on the Chief Constable, and agree to pay the Chief Constable's travel costs and compensation for loss of time to service (i.e. the Chief Constable's salary)
• That I provide proof that a private criminal prosecution is already in progress

I shall consider your request for information under Section 35(2) Data Protection Act and will write to you when a decision has been reached. Please note that as Section 35(2) is a discretionary exemption Norfolk Constabulary is not legally obliged to make disclosure. However, the information that you have kindly provided will be included within the decision making process.

I do not accept that disclosure is discretionary in this situation. The relevant section of the statute is:

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc. ...
(2)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary -
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

So, why all this stalling? Why are the police putting up such a fight to conceal this evidence? Because they don't want me to have a copy of the photograph because the photograph contradicts the story told by the police!

Eventually, after another 61 days had elapsed, Mr. McGuire wrote back to me informing me that he had decided to let me have a copy of the photograph.

The correspondence between myself and Mr. McGuire is available here in its entirety:

The Investigation of the Investigation of the Investigation

Since the “Investigation” conducted by Alan Swain was utterly useless for the reasons stated above, I filed an appeal of his “Investigation”. I received two letters, one from Mr. S Craig on 28^th February 2014, and one from Mr. M Petersen on March 4^th 2014. They both state, with identical wording, that my appeal “will be dealt with in good faith, fairly and in a timely manner. The process can be lengthly”. Well, that seems to me to be self-contradictory regarding the time scale of the response. Since Alan Swain's “Investigation” was completed 15 months after the incident it is clear that the strategy adopted by the police is to drag things out for a very long time. I have a long wait to endure, followed by some more senior police officer telling me that he agrees with the decisions of his subordinates, and that is the end of the matter.

A critical point to note about this latest appeal is that the police refuse to address the facts of the actual incident itself. Alan Swain's “Investigation” was constrained in scope to the behaviour of the police staff involved. This new “Investigation” is constrained in scope to the behaviour of Alan Swain. It is now a meta-meta-investigation; An investigation of the investigation of the investigation. By constraining the parameters of the investigation in this way the police have created yet a further tool to evade the real issues in this case.

Let's look at an example of how this indirection is used to deliberately sabotage their own investigation: If person A complains that person B has committed any arrestable offence, then it is lawful for the police to arrest B. Taken in isolation, carefully removed from the real situation, a meta-investigation can assert that the police behaved lawfully. However, if person B complains that person A has committed an arrestable offence, then it is also lawful for the police to refuse to arrest person A. As before, taken in isolation, carefully removed from the real situation, a meta-investigation can assert that the police behaved lawfully. But what if both these scenarios are parts of the same situation: Person A accuses Person B of an arrestable offence, and, as part of the same incident, Person B accuses Person A of an arrestable offence. What if the police arrest Person A but not Person B? Is this lawful? To answer that question we need to look more closely at the incident itself, the whole situation, not deliberately isolate small subsets of the situation that can be examined out of context. If the police have an agenda against Person A, but are best friends with Person B, is it lawful for them to use their discretion to arrest one and not the other? What if Person A is black and Person B is white? If the police base their decision to arrest on race is that lawful? Well, no it is not! It is bias. That is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998. Such an arrest would be unlawful.

Another aspect of this indirection is that unless it can be proven that a police officer acted deliberately to arrest the wrong person, the “investigation” will not uphold the complaint. If the police simply say that they did not intend to send an innocent person to prison, then that is the end of the matter. The “investigation” does not care that an innocent person was sent to prison; that is irrelevant to the meta-investigation.

In any event it is not just the behaviour of the police that is the issue here. It is also important that the original problem be addressed. Kevin Miles attacked me in the street with a knife, he attempted to murder me. He then perverted justice by lying to the police resulting in an innocent person serving prison time for an offence that they did not commit. This issue is just as important, indeed more important to me, than the corrupt behaviour of the police. By redirecting their investigation the police are willfully refusing to correct the miscarriage of justice that they have inflicted on an innocent victim. They refuse to investigate the original knife attack. They have stated quite clearly in their correspondence with me that the original incident, the knife attack, will not be considered in these subsequent so-called “investigations”.

Group 4 Securicor (G4S)

My complaints to G4S were handled by two employees:

• Mr Jerry Randle: Clinical Governance Manager.
• Dr. Tony Knight: Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services.

Who is Tony Knight?

Dr. Anthony Knight is an employee of G4S. His email signature identifies him as follows:

He lives at:

He has signed the “Hampshire Document” on behalf on G4S, identifying himself as “Clinical Lead for Hampshire”.

General Medical Council (GMC)

I wrote to General Medical Council regarding the behaviour of Dr. Dean Dorsett. I wrote to this address:

I also sent a copy of my letter by email to: practise@gmc-uk.org

A copy of the letter is provided here. For the moment personally identifiable information has been redacted.

Burlington Primary Care

I wrote to Burlington Primary Care regarding the behaviour of their partner Dr. Dean Dorsett. I wrote to this address:

They did not reply to me, but I later learned that they had passed on my complaint to G4S. Their reason was that Dr. Dean Dorsett was working for G4S at the time he attempted to conduct an interrogation of me.

A copy of the letter is provided here. For the moment personally identifiable information has been redacted.

Richard Bacon MP

Amongst all the organizations and public servants that are supposed to protect the public from situations such as the one I found myself in, the only one that has helped me is my Member of Parliament, Richard Bacon MP. When all the others were covering up for their colleagues, defending a system they knew to be at Richard Bacon MP fault, taking the cowardly way out, only Richard Bacon MP had the courage and integrity to help the victim. For this I will be eternally grateful. It is refreshing to know that there are still some people in the UK who have the courage to do the right thing.

Even amongst MPs this is a rare attribute. At various times in my life I have asked for help from two other MPs. They were utterly useless, just like all the other spineless time wasters that you will read about on this website. But Richard Bacon MP stands out from the crowd; he was willing and able to help his constituent in their time of need. I will be voting for Richard Bacon at all elections from now on. I encourage anybody else living in his constituency to do likewise. Even if you do not agree with his political agenda, or the agenda of his party, please vote for him anyway. It is more important to have a MP that will help you when you most need his help than to concern yourself solely with political agenda.

I also want to extend my thanks to the staff that work for Richard Bacon's office. In particular I would like to extend my gratitude to senior caseworkers Michele Savage and Jo Church, and office manager Tracy Reeve for their help with this matter.

The website of the UK Parliament states that: “MPs can assist their constituents in a variety of ways, from making private enquiries on your behalf, to raising matters publicly in the House of Commons”.

I first wrote to Richard Bacon MP on November 7^th 2013. I sent a detailed account of the problems that I personally was facing as a result of this situation. Mr Bacon has achieved the following progress:

• The Police are now treating me as the victim and Kevin Miles as the offender
• The Police are putting rapid response measures in effect to protect against future attacks by the gang upon me
• The Police have taken a crime report from me regarding the knife attack upon me by Kevin Miles
• The police are interviewing witnesses to the previous multiple assailant attack

Mr Bacon has also informed me that he will write to the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, currently Damian Green, if that becomes necessary to remedy this matter.

PS 3022 David Burke

Richard Bacon MP made arrangements with the police to accept a crime report from me regarding the knife attack upon me by Kevin Miles, and to provide protection for me from the neighbourhood gang. I was contacted by PS Burke PS David Burke to make the necessary arrangements. He identified himself as a patrol sergeant, part of SNT Patrol Team 5, based at Diss Police Station. Initially he appeared helpful. He accepted the crime report from me, and put some protective measures in place. In particular PS Burke:

• Apologized for the long time delay in getting the police to treat me as the victim
• Agreed to talk to witnesses of the previous multiple assailant attack upon me by the neighbourhood gang to obtain evidence of, inter alia, Kevin Miles throwing punches at me while gang members held him back
• Agreed to make it clear to Kevin Miles and all other gang members that the knife attack upon me by Kevin Miles was now being re-investigated with me in the role of victim and Kevin Miles in the role of offender
• Agreed to provide me with regular status reports every two weeks

I left the meeting with PS Burke feeling that at last justice would be served. But it was not long before the disappointment set in. After almost a month had elapsed, and still no update from PS Burke, I asked him to provide a status update. He told me that he was in the process of talking to the witnesses to the multiple assailant attack upon me. He told me that he intended to get that completed within his next 6 shifts. Another 2 weeks elapsed and PS Burke did not provide me with any update. I therefore asked him again for a status update. He told me that he would be out of town for 2 weeks, and that he had already (past tense) delegated the task of speaking to the remaining witnesses to one of his colleagues. This implied that some witnesses had already been spoken to. It also clearly stated, with no ambiguity, that talking to these witnesses was already in progress. After another 2 weeks had elapsed, and still no update from PS Burke, I contacted him again. PS Burke did not respond, even though I know he read my email as I received an automated return receipt that I had requested from his email system. After another 2 days had elapsed I contacted PS Burke again asking for a status update. After another 2 days of email exchanges that contained no substantive information PS Burke told me that there would be no further investigation in this case. I then asked PS Burke point by point which of his promises he had carried out. It took another two weeks, and several iterations of emails, to get a complete answer from PS Burke. He then told me that he never had any intention of speaking to the witnesses, or of investigating the knife attack upon me by Kevin Miles. Not only had PS Burke broken all his promises to me, but since he had previously told me that the investigation was in progress, then later told me that he never had any intention of investigating, he had outright lied to me.

In my email correspondence with PS Burke I asked him if the Police/CPS had arranged for a forensic expert to give an opinion on the likely cause of the tiny scratch on Kevin Miles' finger tip. PS Burke responded as follows:

The photograph was not sent off for 'forensic examination'. This is not a proportionate line of enquiry, and it would be incredibly difficult for any 'expert' to conclude with any authority what had caused a minor injury on a finger.

It is also worth noting that PS Burke describes the finger scratch as “a minor injury”. But yet one of the reasons given by the Police/CPS to justify their decision to arrest me, and not to arrest Kevin Miles, was that Kevin Miles sustained greater injuries than me. Not only is that of no probative value in determining who was the aggressor, but since the only injury sustained by Kevin Miles was the finger scratch, the differences between his injuries and mine are also trivial.

In his final email to me PS Burke invited me to phone him at Diss police station for an explanation. I called him one time only after receiving his email invitation. His attitude towards me was immediately hostile and combative. He said: “I will not be interrogated by you”. The conversation ended with no satisfactory explanation.

Complaint to IPCC and Professional Standards about PS David Burke

I filed a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, IPCC, about the behaviour of PS Burke. This was passed on to Andy Bushell of Professional Standards. The report of the Professional Services Investigation is available by clicking the link below:

Andy Bushell states in his report: “You indicated that you wished to make a counter assault allegation against Mr Miles. You were given the opportunity during your detention to make the allegation but chose not to provide the information for this to take place”. Thus Andy Bushell is clearly aware that I asked to file a crime report at the time of my arrest. At my interview I was clearly told that I would not be allowed to file a crime report at that time, and not until after I was released. Thus when Andy Bushell says: “You were given the opportunity during your detention to make the allegation but chose not to provide the information for this to take place” he is outright lying. I was not given any such opportunity. Any questions put to me in an interview under caution following my arrest are designed to build a case against me, and for no other purpose. The police made it very clear to me that in order for me to “have the opportunity … to make an allegation” I would first have to wait until I was released, and then file a crime report alleging that Kevin Miles attacked me. This procedural issue is difficult for the layman to understand, and so Andy Bushell exploits this confusion to hide what really happened.

PS David Burke states that my crime report was not sufficient to arrest Kevin Miles: “His MG11 alone does not provide sufficient evidence to prosecute”. But yet Kevin Miles' allegation was sufficient to get me arrested and charged. So, why the difference in response to my report and Kevin Miles' report? The evidence was the same in both cases, so why the different outcome? The reason was that if they arrested Kevin Miles they would be admitting that they had previously sent the wrong person to prison. The police and CPS will go to any lengths to avoid admitting their mistake.

PS David Burke goes on to say: “The gathered evidence suggests that Miles is a victim and he gives his account in the form of an MG11 at the time of the offence”. What evidence? There was none! The only independent witness, Mrs. Rosemary Steer, stated that she did not see a knife and did not see an assault. She only confirmed that Kevin Miles had told her that I had a knife, she did not see any knife. There is no evidence beyond Kevin Miles' own assertion. Thus there is no more evidence that I assaulted Kevin Miles than that he assaulted me.

Later PS David Burke states: “Ultimately, there are no independent witnesses who can for certain say who was the aggressor in this incident”. Thus PS David Burke is contradicting his own statement given in the paragraph above. PS Burke cannot even keep his own story straight as to his reasons for his own actions. He is now saying that the evidence against me is identical to the evidence against Kevin Miles. PS David Burke states clearly that the police did not know who was the aggressor, but yet I went to prison for 12 weeks, and [Redacted] did not.

PS David Burke states that he would speak to about 10 witnesses to the earlier multiple assailant attack upon me by Kevin Miles and his gang. Then PS Burke said that he was going on annual leave and had arranged for his colleague to speak to these witnesses. Then he said that he would only speak to the witnesses if they offered new evidence. How could he possibly know if they had any new evidence until he spoke to them? This is a ridiculous excuse to avoid speaking to the witnesses. Then he said that he would not be speaking to any witnesses and never had any intention of doing so. How can willfully refusing to talk to witnesses ever be in the interests of finding the truth? How can deliberately suppressing evidence ever be in the interests of justice? The only reason that PS Burke refused to talk to the witnesses was that he was afraid of what they might tell him.

PS Burke refers to a previous conviction that I had for assault. This was also the result of a multiple assailant street attack upon me. In that case I defended myself with the minimum necessary force. I won that fight. I made a full report to the Police at interview, but they decided to charge me anyway. It seems that if one is attacked by multiple assailants then those assailants are considered to be multiple witnesses against one. Thus the victim of a multiple assailant attack is by definition the guilty party! I was remanded in that case. During my remand I was repeatedly offered a deal: Either I could insist on my innocence and stay in prison for 3-6 months waiting on a trial date, or I could make a false confession and be released immediately. I took the deal, and was released. Perhaps some of my readers will criticize my actions in making a false confession in that case, but I ask you to examine your own mind and ask yourselves what you would do in such a situation. Would you sacrifice months of your life in order to win the moral high ground against an uncaring system? Indeed, I think that situation reflects badly on a criminal justice system that would use remand as an interrogation weapon to extort a false confession. My confession was de facto a ransom paid for my release. Now PS Burke has sought to use my previous conviction for assault as evidence of bad character against me. He claims that this prior conviction is evidence that I was the aggressor in the fight between myself and Kevin Miles. But yet PS Burke, in his same report, states that evidence of Kevin Miles' participation in a previous multiple assailant attack upon me is of no evidential value. PS Burke states: “Even if this offence had been proved against MILES, bad character cannot bolster a weak case”. So my alleged bad character is evidence that I was the aggressor, but Kevin Miles' bad character is of no evidential value. Once again PS Burke wants to have his cake and eat it too. Also, my assault conviction was the result of me defending myself against multiple aggressors ‐ I did not start that fight. Kevin Miles' bad character is the result of him taking part in a cowardly multiple assailant attack on one old man. So, just who has the worst character? Which of us is the more likely to be the aggressor in the fight between myself and Kevin Miles?

What really happened here is that during PS Burke's investigation he came to realize that if Kevin Miles was arrested and charged it would embarrass his colleagues and the Norfolk Constabulary. This fact then dominated his thinking and he looked for ways to make my crime report go away. Instead of investigating to find the truth and give me justice he instead looked for excuses to drop the case. PS Burke perverted justice, and conspired with others to pervert justice, in order to hide the sordid truth that they had sent an innocent person to prison.

The only criticism that the Professional Standards Investigation made of PS Burke was in managing my expectations: “the officer has received Management Action in terms of advice concerning the need to update victims of crime within the required time scales. This process has afforded the officer the opportunity to reflect upon the requirement to update victims in accordance with the victim code”. This is a totally trivial rebuke that was not even a primary issue in my complaint.

Follow Up by Richard Bacon MP

I wrote again to Richard Bacon MP informing him that the police were refusing to arrest and charge Kevin Miles. Mr. Bacon again interceded with the police, but was unable get a result. Mr. Bacon's response is available by clicking on the link below.

A MP has no authority to order the police to do anything when acting on behalf of a constituent. All they can do is pass on the citizen's concerns to their contacts within the police. However MPs do have power to change the law. I wish that Richard Bacon MP, and other MPs, would use that power to rectify the problems within an out of control police force. The police, and other components of the criminal justice system, are a danger to society. Only new legislation can fix the problem. I urge my readers to contact your own MPs and ask that they use their power to change the bad laws that allow a rouge criminal justice system to continue unfettered.

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

A written complaint letter was sent to the United Nations at their published address for the receipt of Human Rights complaints. That address is:

There was no response, not even an acknowledgment of receipt. The letter was also sent to the published email address for Human Rights Complaints. That address is: CP@ohchr.org Likewise there was no response to this communication either. A followup email was sent to the same address asking them to confirm whether or not they had received the earlier correspondence. This email was also ignored. No response of any kind has been received from the United Nations.

I find it hard to understand why the United Nations would behave in such an un-businesslike manner as to ignore correspondence directly relating to a blatant breach of a UN Resolution by a nation state. In any event basic business etiquette would require at least an acknowledgment of receipt. If they considered my correspondence to be inappropriate they could at least reply telling me so.

A copy of the letter is provided here. For the moment personally identifiable information has been redacted. The letter was accompanied by copies of all relevant correspondence that had been sent to other organizations.

After this website was published the United Nations Office in Vienna UNOV, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC, read this website many times. However, they made no attempt whatsoever to contact me to discuss the situation described here. They preferred to skulk from the shadows, reading what was written about them. I know this from analysis of the server logs.

Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner

Norfolk PCC Stephen Bett A Police and Crime Commissioner is required by law to carry out a set of functions prescribed by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), and the Police Act (1996 and 2011 amendment). In summary the function of the Norfolk PCC is to represent the people of Norfolk, and to control the police in the interests of the people. Stephen Bett brags on his website that he “hires and fires” the Chief Constable. Stephen Bett is thus saying, in very clear language, that he has absolute power to deal with complaints against the Norfolk Constabulary. The buck stops with Stephen Bett.

The PCC hires (and, if necessary, fires) the Chief Constable and holds him/her to account for running the force. He also sets Norfolk’s policing priorities and monitors performance against those priorities. - Norfolk PCC Website

On another page on his website, Stephen Bett discusses “Supporting Victims - Providing support services for victims and witnesses of crime”. He then goes on to applaud his Code of Practice claiming that it “puts victims at the heart of policing and criminal justice”. He states: “Among the revisions to the Victims’ Code is a broadening of the definition of victim, aimed at ensuring services and support can be accessed by all victims regardless of the type of crime by which they’ve been affected”.

Victims’ needs must be at the heart of both policing and criminal justice. It is vital that victims are properly supported and have a choice and a voice. The introduction of the Code in 2013 was a step towards achieving that. Any change to the Code which improves access to information and quality support services for those affected by crime is to be welcomed. - Stephen Bett, Norfolk PCC

A large part of Stephen Bett’s website is devoted to telling a story of how he is dedicated to helping victims. He states that the Police and Crime Commissioner is a “service provider” that is responsible for helping victims. But all this is of course utter hypocrisy! When I asked for his help in dealing with a lethal situation in which I was the victim his immediate response was to toss the problem over the wall back to the police. For avoidance of doubt: He did not use his authority to order the police to rectify the problem. Rather he just washed his hands of the matter and allowed the Professional Standards Department to drop the matter saying that they had already dealt with the matter on a previous occasion.

Under the Code, which was revised and re-published in November 2015, your PCC is a ‘service provider’, responsible for providing support services to victims of crime. Services must be available for those who wish to contact the police and for those who seek support but do not want the police to be involved - Stephen Bett, Norfolk PCC

Another fundamental failure in all of the complaint handling is the classification of who is the victim and who is the offender. If these roles are reversed then even a system that would otherwise be effective at helping the victim is perverted into hurting the victim yet further. If the victim is treated as the offender, subjected to yet further damage, cost, imprisonment and embarrassment, then the full force of the system is employed to hurt the victim. Likewise, when the offenders are pandered to, treated like they are the victim, it causes yet further damage to the real victim. The first, and most important, step in rectifying an injustice is to correctly assign the roles of victim and offender.

Stephen Bett’s website also talks at length about restorative justice. In any restorative justice program the first step is for the offender to admit what they have done. Only then can they accept responsibility for the damage they have caused. I am the victim of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They both refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Stephen Bett will not make any attempt to intercede in any meaningful way. His claims to be a ‘service provider’ and his claims to be victim focused, are utter lies and hypocrisy.

Stephen Bett Fails To Handle The Situation And Gives Me the Runaround

Well, let’s see how Stephen Bett lives up to all his claims: I wrote to Stephen Bett describing the situation that I was facing with the Norfolk Constabulary. I made it clear to him that the case had already been willfully frustrated several times by Professional Standards and IPCC. Mr. Bett’s response was to send the complaint right back to Professional Standards. Mr. Bett conspicuously ignored the description of the life threatening situation, the absurdity of the advice given by the police, the clear allegation that the police were covering up their prior mistakes by refusing to conduct a proper investigation now, and the fact that the behaviour of the police contradicted their own published policies. My letter made it clear to Mr. Bett that the intervention of the Police and Crime Commissioner was needed as all other avenues within the police and IPCC had been exhausted. What did Mr. Bett do? He kicked it right back to the very police departments that were being complained about.

I received a response from Mr. Beverley Sewell and Mr. M. Petersen of Professional Services. They stated that the current complaint was “substantially similar” to an earlier complaint. Of course it was not really “substantially similar”, rather it was identical, it was the very same complaint. Of course Mr. Bett knew this because he had deliberately and wilfully sent it back to Professional Standards in order to run me around in circles yet again. Mr. Petersen says that he will not record the complaint because “The complaint is repetitious; You previously raised substantially the same issues under complaint reference PS 247/13. At that time you were provided with an outcome and a right of appeal. You exercised this right and your appeal was not upheld”. Mr. Petersen is criticizing me for sending the same complaint back to Professional Services; but I did not send it back to them again, Stephen Bett did. This technique of frustrating legitimate complaints falls into the category of “Using Previous Failures to Justify Refusing to Act Later”. It is one of a standard set of techniques used by Professional Standards, IPCC, and now Stephen Bett.

In that same letter Messrs. Sewell and Petersen told me that Professional Standards did not have a remit to address complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner and so they were forwarding that part of the complaint to IPCC. But yet the website of the Police and Crime Commissioner says that IPCC will forward all complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner to the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk. Stephen Bett, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, obviously knew that when he sent a complaint about himself to Professional Standards. So, here we go around the Mulberry Bush yet again. And while these deadbeats conspire to protect and cover up for each other, their salaries are paid for out of the public purse. They are a financial burden to the people of Norfolk as well as wasting the victim’s time.

I received another letter from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, this one authored by one of Stephen Bett’s assistants, Sharon Lister. In this letter Ms. Lister said: “I am writing to advise you that all complaints made in relation to the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner are dealt with by the Norfolk Police and Crime Panel … Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Police and Crime Panel for assessment”. So, yet another conflicting statement from Mr. Bett’s office as to who handles complaints about his behaviour. It seems that creating confusion as to where to send complaints is yet another technique in their arsenal of weapons of obstruction.

I informed Sharon Lister and Stephen Bett that all their statements about who handles complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner were wrong. I informed them that complaints about Mr. Stephen Bett, the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner, are dealt with by the voters on election day. I told him that his trying to justify his actions by pretending to subject himself to independent investigation was not fooling anyone. The “Norfolk Police and Crime Panel” are his buddies, and will always pat him on the back and say “well done” no matter what he has done. This is in no way a legitimate investigation.

I then received a letter from another of Mr. Bett’s assistants, Claire Buckley. She states that: “The Professional Standards Department of Norfolk Constabulary and personnel working within that Department, come under the direction and control of the Chief Constable and not the Police and Crime Commissioner”. In other words she is telling me that the Police and Crime Commissioner, Stephen Bett, has no control over, or responsibility for, the actions of Professional Standards, or indeed any police officer. She then advises me to complain to IPCC yet again. But yet Stephen Bett has made it very clear on his website that he has complete control over the Norfolk Constabulary. I wrote back to Stephen Bett reminding him that he does have control over Professional Standards, albeit an indirect control by way of his control over the Chief Constable. To spell it out in little baby steps:

1. Mr. Stephen Bett, the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner, orders the Chief Constable to order his employees to fix the problem.
2. If his employees refuse to fix the problem, then the Chief Constable fires the offending employees.
3. If the Chief Constable defies this order, then the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner fires the Chief Constable.
4. If the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner refuses to do his duty, then the electorate fires the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner on Thursday 5th May 2016.

Of course all this talk about the Professional Standards Department is itself a red herring; just another obstructive, evasive detour engineered by Stephen Bett and his numerous assistants. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that my original purpose in contacting the Police and Crime Commissioner was not to complain about Professional Services. Rather, my true purpose was to ask Stephen Bett to fix these problems:

1. The bullying by a local neighbourhood gang
2. The attempt murder of me by a member of that gang
3. The sending of the victim to prison without trial
4. The refusal to act against the offenders
5. The emboldening of the offenders by treating them as the victim
6. The refusal to talk to witnesses that would provide evidence contrary to the version the police wanted to tell
7. The coverup of Police incompetence
8. The failure of the Police to follow their own published policies and procedures

Also on Mr. Bett's website he lists the campaign promises that he made at the last election in 2012. These included:

• Support victims of crime, vulnerable and elderly people
• Use targeting and prevention to reduce demand on police
• Listen carefully to the community, reaching out to minority communities and the disengaged to ensure policing is fair and equitable
• Reduce vulnerability, promote equality and support victims

I am a victim of crime. He has failed to support me. Indeed, his police have sent me to prison without trial for being the victim of a knife attack on the street. On his watch his police have failed to send the attacker to prison, or even to arrest him. He has failed to address the issue of making the victim the subject of a restraining order to protect the attacker, thus further emboldening the offenders. Not only does he refuse to target the neighbourhood gang that attacked me, but indeed he allows his police to refuse to talk to witnesses that would tell them what really happened. This is willful ignorance on the part of his police. He is allowing his police officers to conspire to cover up their own incompetence. He refuses to listen to me, instead giving me the runaround. He allows his police to take active steps to perpetrate the vulnerability of victims. He promotes inequality, applying different standards to me and the gang members that attacked me.

Stephen Bett’s website promotes Restorative Justice. The first step in Restorative Justice is for the offender to admit their actions. I am the victim of the Norfolk Constabulary. Before there can be any Restorative Justice the Norfolk Constabulary must man up to what they have done to me. But of course Stephen Bett has no intention of allowing that to happen. Instead Stephen Bett and his police force will insist that they have not made any error no matter how rigorous the evidence to the contrary. Thus Stephen Bett frustrates Restorative Justice in my case.

Stephen Bett Gets A Taste Of His Own Medicine

The BBC reports an interesting tale of poetic justice involving Stephen Bett: HM Revenue & Customs, HMRC, forced Mr. Bett to repay £2,700 in mileage expenses that he had claimed for traveling between his home and the Police HQ. HMRC insists that Mr. Bett is not entitled to claim these expenses. Mr. Bett is not happy with that decision: He insists that the government agency is in the wrong. Mr. Bett is quoted as saying that he would: “fight until I get HMRC to admit they are wrong”. Indeed the BBC reports several other interesting quotes from Mr. Bett on this matter. Here are a few of them:

No-one wants to make a decision and it seems that my papers are currently lost in the system - Mr. Stephen Bett Complaining About HMRC Handling Of His Expenses

It’s typical of a government department, they are ineffective - Mr. Stephen Bett Complaining About HMRC Handling Of His Expenses

They keep passing my case around and want to be as obstructive as possible in order to avoid a tribunal hearing - Mr. Stephen Bett Complaining About HMRC Handling Of His Expenses

Well, Mr. Bett, do you see any similarities between your situation and mine? You don’t like it one little bit when a government agency gives you the runaround do you Mr. Bett? So why do you do the exact same thing to me? Why do you allow the Norfolk Constabulary, Professional Standards, and even the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, to run me around in circles, trying their very best to wear me down, doing everything in their power to frustrate valid complaints? And as you are very well aware Mr. Bett, your agency has treated me far worse, and ran me around to a much greater extent, than HMRC did to you. You have stated on your website, Mr. Bett, that you hire and fire the Chief Constable of Norfolk. Thus you are saying, Mr. Bett, that you have total control over the Norfolk Constabulary. The buck stops with you Mr. Bett. So, why do you do unto others that which you cannot abide being done to you? Mr. Bett - You are a hypocrite!

Bett Family Values

Henry Bett Stephen Bett raised more than a few eyebrows when he publicly declared that speed limits should be abolished, and drivers should be allowed to drive as fast as they wanted. Mr. Bett’s opinion has been denounced by, inter alia, the Guild of Experienced Motorists, David Quarmby, chairman of the RAC Foundation and Tim Passmore, the Police and Crime Commissioner for the neighbouring county, Suffolk.

So, should speed limits be abolished? What could go wrong with that? Well, Stephen Bett’s son, Henry Bett, drove his Fendt tractor at high speed down a narrow country lane in Norfolk. He certainly drove his tractor at a speed way higher than he could safely control his vehicle. He was at the time in a cocaine induced rage. He crashed head on into a Fiat driven by Rebecca Brown. She was killed in the crash. Her son Thomas was also in the Fiat. He desperately tried to resuscitate his mother. Thomas was only 17 years old at the time. He held his mother in his arms and watched her die. Henry Bett only sustained quite trivial injuries in the crash.

Rebecca Brown What happened next gives us clear insight into the ethics of Henry Bett: He continued to drive for a considerable distance before returning to the scene. Even then he did nothing to help the dying victim. While other passing motorists stopped and tried to help, Henry Bett just stood around making a series of gormless attempts to shed responsibility for the collision. First he claimed that he was on the correct side of the road and the Fiat was in the middle of the road. This was later refuted by forensic evidence that showed Henry Bett was driving in the middle of the road, and the Fiat driven by Mrs. Brown was well over on the correct side of the road. Indeed, immediately prior to the collision, Mrs. Brown drove her Fiat onto the verge to allow Mr. Bett to avoid hitting her. But, he hit her anyway. The force of the collision was sufficient to demolish one side of the Fiat, the side where Mrs. Brown was seated. Next Mr. Bett claimed that his speed was not his fault because the governor that limited the speed of his tractor was malfunctioning. Forensic examination revealed that this also was a lie. It was also irrelevant: A driver does not need a governor to tell them that their current speed is so dangerously high that they cannot avoid hitting oncoming traffic. Henry Bett also lied about how recently he had used cocaine. He claimed he had last used the drug 4 days before the crash. Expert testimony revealed that he had used cocaine no longer than 12 hours before the crash.

Fendt Tractor So, was this behaviour out of character for Henry Bett? Well, no, it was his normal behaviour. This is proven by the fact that at the time of this fatal collision Henry Bett was already being prosecuted for another incident involving speeding and careless driving in his Land Rover. He also has four prior speeding convictions in the previous four years.

Did Henry Bett show any remorse for the death he caused? No, he did not. Right through the trial he continued to blame Rebecca Brown for the collision. He only cried when the jury returned a guilty verdict and the judge told him he would be going to prison. He wept for himself, not for Rebecca Brown.

So, does this behaviour of Henry Bett reflect on the Police and Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett? I believe it does. The son works on the same farm owned by his father. They are thus in close contact every day. The father has repeatedly and publicly shown disdain for speed limits. This very likely influenced his son’s contempt for speed limits. Stephen Bett has also demonstrated a snobbish, elitist, attitude in his dealings with me. He does not give a damn about the suffering of members of the public. He responds to cries for help as if they are opportunities for him to brag about his own importance.

Will You Help The Cause ?

You can help rid Norfolk of this time wasting parasite: Please print out a few copies of the election flyer here and leave them lying around in strategic locations. Some good choices would be on buses, trains, in taxis, in library books, in hymn books in church, or pinned to the bulletin board in coffee shops.

Mission Accomplished !

Stephen Bett is gone. He was voted out in the May 5th 2016 elections. He ranked fourth in number of votes.

I would like to thank all of you that helped to get this result. It was a team effort. Many people helped by distributing election flyers, getting the message out on social media, and of course by voting against Stephen Bett on election day. We, the public, have learned that we do have the power to put a stop to corrupt and ineffective officials. Stephen Bett has learned that he cannot turn his back on the job he was elected to do and redefine his job to suit his own agenda.

Summary of the Complaint Process

Some of my readers will probably be wondering why I would publish this defilee of the complaints process in such detail. Well, I wanted the public at large to see the evasive tactics used by the system to stifle legitimate complaints. This is not unique to my situation. I have corresponded with a large number of victims who have described similar experiences with complaint handling agencies in the United Kingdom. These agencies are designed to willfully frustrate complaints. Their goal is to wear the complainant down until they are exhausted and give up their campaign for justice. This situation is ridiculous. It hurts the public in many ways. It allows bad government to go unchecked. It wastes the tax payer's money in paying the salary of these time wasters and for the facilities they use.

An Open Invitation to Other Victims

I know that many other people have been victimized by the Criminal Justice System. Often this reaches the level of the victim being on the receiving end of a police vendetta. In prison I met many brave and honorable people that had been worn down, and forced to compromise their principles, or even in some cases to make false confessions, by prolonged and cowardly police conduct which overcame their will to resist. I would like to hear from anyone that is willing to come forward and tell their story. I realize that in many cases the costs of doing so are horrendous, but if you wish you can remain anonymous. I would like to collect evidence for academic study into police and CPS bias, and in support of efforts to bring meaningful change to the system. You may contact me using the contact form on the left side bar.