Sections

• Introduction and overview, including legislation and police Regulations; my questions in relation to events; my profile

• (1) Blatant evidence of protection of Andrew Ladsky and concurrent wilful discrimination against me by Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002 when I (as well as fellow leaseholders) reported him for harassment - and further confirmed by the police "Crime report"` CR:5604102/02

• (2) By 2003, when Andrew Ladsky made a so-called "complaint" against me - 'mysteriously'- Kensington & Chelsea Police no longer had concerns for "evidence" and the 'judicious' use of resources - and, continuing with its wilful discrimination against me - DENIED me the right to defend myself against his accusations - "Crime report" CR:5602261/03

• (3) In 2007, continuation of Kensington police's wilful discrimination against me: WITHOUT CONTACTING ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME, and consequently TOTALLY DENYING ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS - following, yet another so-called "complaint" against me by Andrew Ladsky - with the aim of getting my website closed down, TDC Simon J Dowling of the 'Notting Hill police station Community Safety Unit', made UNLAWFUL, malicious, scurrilous and libellous accusations against me to my website Host, FALSELY implying that I had committed "a crime" - as well as branding me a "Nazi", AND, in the process, impersonated an investigating officer - "Crime report" CR:5605839/07

• (4) While I, and at least four of my fellow leaseholders have complained to Kensington & Chelsea police of suffering harassment from Andrew Ladsky (a criminal offence), 'mysteriously' there are "no crime reports" against him on the police system

• (5) Continuation of the wilful discrimination against me by Kensington police - this time under the Data Protection Act 1998 following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - discrimination that is endorsed by the Met Commissioner and Home Office Secretary, as well as by the IPCC - forcing me to engage in months of endless letter-writing in an attempt to exert my rights and legitimate interests - and leading me to send a pre-action letter on 17 March 2011, followed by filing a claim on 19 April 2011. (Like Andrew Ladsky and his mob, they get their sadistic kicks out of tormenting the 'little people' and making them run like hamsters on a wheel)

• 5.1 In 2010 (in addition to what took place in October 2010), Kensington police continued to wilfully discriminate against me by STILL ignoring my legislative rights - demonstrating its continued belief (evidently endorsed by the Met Commissioner and the IPCC) that it is above the law of the land - this time by failing to reply to my Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 - leading me to decide to issue proceedings. I sent a Pre-action letter on 17 March 2011 stating that if my demands were not met, I would issue proceedings. They were not met. I filed a claim on 19 April 2011.

• (6) In light of my experience with the police in 2002 and 2003, when the Law Society and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors told me in 2005 that I should "report to the police my alleged criminal offences" by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), and Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - respectively - I saw no point doing this. Having since: (1) come across the 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the police and the Law Society; (2) seen the 2002, 2003 and 2007 police reports, as a result of my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - and its 'Get lost!' replies to my requests for corrections and deletions - as per my rights and legitimate interests under the Data Protection Act 1998 - my assessment was correct

• (7) Additional food for thought...

• (8) At the of time of launching my website, I asked "I wonder what 'punishment' awaits me for 'daring' to capture my experience with the police". I got the answer!

• (8A) More of "the answer" in 2010: Continuation of the breach by the State of (among others) my Human Rights, as Kensington & Chelsea police continues to wilfully discriminate against me, as well as fail to protect me from the acts of private individuals - as, in spite of my SEVEN visits, it has REFUSED to record my complaints of harassment as crime reports, and therefore REFUSED to investigate them. This makes it the FOURTH TIME since 2002 that Kensington police has FAILED to - correctly - record offences against me as harassment and, concurrently, FAILED to take action - Summary - (NB: On EVERY visit I wore my T-shirt, throughout, over my coat)

• (9) Additional information on Kensington police - and reports on the police in general

• (9.1) Waste of Pounds 5-7 million (US$8.8-12.4 million) of taxpayer' money investigating one of its own

• (9.2) My experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police is symptomatic of the state of the police force: OUT OF CONTROL

Overview

I have been at the 'receiving end' of the 'Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police treatment' since 2002.

In 2002, Kensington & Chelsea police dismissed my complaint and that of at least four other leaseholders when we (separately, over time) reported Andrew Ladsky for harassment and intimidation. Hence, criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

See section 1 below for examples of harassment, intimidation, assault (one occasion - My Diary 26 Feb 02) I have suffered, as well as infringement on my privacy. Examples of other harassment, subsequent to my reporting events to Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002 - My Diary 27 Jul 03 ; 27 Aug 03 ; 19 Apr 05 ; My Diary 2010 - and many others - listed under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

(Other residents have suffered the same treatment from Andrew Ladsky - see the (incredibly brave) person who headed the residents association ; the Elderly Resident ; Other Residents. Considering the approach and content of the correspondence, to this can also be added the harassment and intimidation of the local Citizens Advice Bureau, Nucleus )

My battling, of course - in vain - at the local level, led me to send 'a cry for help' to the then Police Complaints Authority (section 1), as well as to the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, resulting in the typical outcome: closing of rank (section 1)

In 2003, Ladsky's attempted to bully and intimidate me during the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003. He preceded this by reporting me, in January 2003, to Chelsea police for "swearing at him" - with the obvious objective of scaring me into giving up challenging 'Steel Services (SS) =Ladsky et.al.'s application to the London tribunal. Chelsea police DENIED me the opportunity to defend myself against the accusation by FAILING to reply to my letter asking for precise details of the accusation (section 2). 'Mysteriously', in this instance, Chelsea police no longer had any concern about the "need for evidence", nor 'judicious' use of resources (section 2)

Clearly having a 'very special relationship' with the borough's police force, in 2007 - having failed to get my current American website Host to close down my website in spite of weeks of ongoing threats of legal action – based on scurrilous accusations against me - by his other puppets, Portner and Jaskel (Portner # 2), yet again, Andrew Ladsky turned to his ‘friends’, this time at Notting Hill police, for assistance.

Falling over backwards to help him, TDC Simon J Dowling of the 'Community Safety Unit' impersonated an investigating officer (my conclusion) and FALSELY implied to my Host that I had committed one or more "crimes". He backed down when challenged by my Host - but STILL continued to make an - equally unsupported - libellous accusation against me, as well as branded me a "Nazi"

Demonstrating blatant collusion with Ladsky - NOTTING HILL POLICE DID NOT CONTACT ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME - AND, CONSEQUENTLY TOTALLY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS - AND FILED ANOTHER MALICIOUS "CRIME REPORT" AGAINST ME (section 3)

As I keep repeating throughout this website: I AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - NOT a criminal. The abusive, discriminatory -and therefore unlawful - treatment I have been subjected to by Kensington & Chelsea police from my very first contact in 2002, and subsequently by Notting Hill police in 2007, added to my conclusion that I am under surveillance by the police (among others), consideration of various events led me to file this 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police (under the Data Protection Act 1998) (point # 5, below)

As a result, I obtained a copy of the three "crime reports" filed by the police on its system, at the time (point # 5, below) . ALL three confirm my assessment of Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police at the time. (Key points from each of the reports are captured at the beginning of each the three sections i.e. for 2002, 2003 and 2007. A summary of my conclusions is comprised under point # 5)

In 2009-10, the typically arrogant 'get lost / don't give a damn about your rights' response from the police, all the way up to the Met Commissioner and the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, led me to send, on 2 June 2010 a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998, and supporting document (point # 5.1).

2011 - Having, on several occasions, warned in my correspondence that if my demands were not met I would issue proceedings - as my demands continued to be (typically) ignored, including following my pre-action letter of 17 March 2011, on 19 April 2011, I filed a claim against the police et.al. (It required my undertaking many months of very intensive desk research, working 60+ hours per week, to be able to do this) = has blighted my life = a continuation of what started in 2002.

The overall word I have to sum-up events with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police - in relation to myself - the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - in 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009-10, October 2010 and to date, as well as that of other Residents at Jefferson House (1) is:

C O R R U P T I O N (2)...

...as well as: complicity (2), duplicity (2), misrepresentations (2), cover-up (2), protection of, and assistance to a criminal, extreme arrogance, and a belief of being above the law of the land - including Police-specific legislation.

(Corruption in the police is widely recognised - see point # 9.2. It is said that POWER CORRUPTS, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY) (Also evidenced 'higher up' e.g. My Diary - 'peers for cash': Jan 09 , Feb 09 ; 'MPs for cash')

And, as detailed under point # 5, this collusion is also evident at the highest level.

And 'I' - as a taxpayer - pay for these people!

As to the explanation for the conduct? Overlapping layers of: (1) first and foremost: my profile; (2) 'the Brotherhood' (highly likely); (3) a police force that is out of control, and does not even give a damn about Parliament (e.g. phone hacking events)

As to what the Home Office, which comprises the police (for which it issues Regulations and Guidance) and the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (staffed by police officers on secondment!!!!!), can say for its UNLAWFUL actions (see My questions ; Breach of my Human Rights) - and lack of action - (like the other parties who have acted against me and my fellow leaseholders in one way or another since 2002):

"We turned a blind eye and a deaf ear / did what we did / said what we said / wrote what we wrote, ALL for the sake of the addition of a penthouse flat and three other flats to Jefferson House - so that Andrew Ladsky et. al. could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot...

...AND??" (benefit to those involved?)

(1) See Head of Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents ; Ex(?) Resident K

(2) Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of:

• corruption: "Willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain"; "evil or morally depraved". As I wrote under point 8.3 of my 18 February 2010 letter to DI Crispin Lee, Directorate of Professional Standards, (cc'd IPCC) (point # 5, below), "I use the term ‘corruption’ in the sense of the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “moral depravation”, as well as in the sense of “for personal gain”, because there has to be a reason for [the police officers] not performing as per their legal remit"
• complicity: "the fact or condition of being involved with others in an unlawful activity"
• duplicity: "deceitfulness"
• to misrepresent: "to give a false or misleading account"
• cover-up: “an attempt to conceal the truth about a mistake or a crime”

(For examples of OTHER people's experience with the police see My Diary 3 Apr 10 ; 13 Apr 08 ; 22 Apr 08+)

I concluded my 4 August 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (point #1) with:  

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

Up to 2002, I had trust and faith in the British police. (Part of my (naïve) trust and faith in 'the system' of this "Kingdom" as, until then, in my previous 33 years in this country, I had NEVER had any dealings with the police). The outcome of events since then - as related on this page, and in October 2010 - lead me to now feel absolute, utter disgust and extreme loathing and repulsion. I can't bear the sight of them.

It is certainly ideally suited to train the police force of oppressive regimes e.g. “British police training Libyan force ‘insult to memory of PC Yvonne Fletcher’”, (The Daily Telegraph, 18 Sep 09)

Police legislation and Regulations

In reading about my experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police, consider the following extracts from the CODE OF CONDUCT / STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR included in the Conduct Regulations, in force at various times of my dealings with these police stations since 2002 - including events captured in My Diary in October 2010

These Regulations APPLY TO ALL POLICE OFFICERS.

Pursuant to powers under various Acts e.g. s.50 of the Police Act 1996, s.23 and s.105 of the Police Reform Act 2002, they are issued, BY the Secretary of State, as subordinate legislation (principally to the Police Reform Act 2002), in the form of Statutory Instruments. s.50 of the 1996 Act describes these Regulations as "provision with respect to- (e) the conduct, efficiency and effectiveness of members of police forces and the maintenance of discipline"

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

As to the issuing of Guidance, the Secretary of State's powers to do this are comprised under s.87 of the 1996 Act, which states (1) "...police authorities, chief officers of police and other members of police forces...shall have regard to any such guidance in the discharge of their functions" .

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR from this legislation that, CONTRARY to the evidence contained on this page, and in My Diary October 2010, that - REGARDLESS OF RANK - POLICE OFFICERS, INCLUDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT OFFICERS - ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO IGNORE THE REGULATIONS AND RELATED GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

And, concurrently, the Secretary of State CANNOT ignore the fact that s/he has issued these Regulations and Guidance when s/he hears of misconduct by a police force. And NOR can the IPCC ignore these Regulations and Guidance when considering a complaint from a member of the public.

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

Back to list

Back to list

As a - NON-LAWYER - I ask:

(1) - IN 2002, WHAT LED DC DR Adams and DC SP Crockett to conclude that they could commit offences against me under the Defamation Act 1996 - by misrepresenting / failing to record evidence / failing to record events - with the objective of, among others, undermining my credibility? (point # 1)

(2) - WHAT LED DC DR Adams to conclude that he could commit offences against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - by his threatening manner and comments on more than one occasion? (point # 1)

(3) - WHAT LED DC DR Adams and DC SP Crockett to conclude that they could ignore the Parliament-endorsed police's Code of Conduct (1999 Regulations, in force in 2002)? And ditto re. their supervisor, DI Webster, and the Chief Superintendent at the time. (My - non-lawyer - assessment of breach)

(4) - IN 2003, WHAT LED PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator", of Chelsea police, to conclude that he could commit offences against me under s.1(1)(3) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - ‘Offence of sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety’ (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.43) (a criminal offence), and s.7(3A) 'aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring harassment' (a criminal offence) - by sending me his threatening letter of 27 January 2003, and continuing to harass me by sending his 6 February 2003 letter - instigated by Andrew Ladsky (point # 2)

(5) - WHAT LED PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator", to conclude that he could ignore s. 1(4) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 which defines a criminal investigation as “investigation which police officers have a duty to conduct with a view to being ascertained (a) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or (b) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it” - as well as the Code of Practice under Part II of the Act e.g. para.3.5- "In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect…"

(6) - WHAT LED PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator", to conclude that he could FALSELY record on the police system that I committed an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997? (point # 2)

(7) - WHAT LED PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator", to conclude that he could ignore the Parliament-endorsed police's Code of Conduct (1999 Regulations, in force in 2003)? And ditto re. the Chief Superintendent at the time. (My - non-lawyer - assessment of breach)

(8) - In 2007, WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, of Kensington's 'Community Safety Unit', to conclude that he had the right, in his 16 March 2007 email to my website Host, to impersonate (a bent) investigating officer - and thereby act outside his statute-stipulated duties defined under sections 38(5A),(5B),6(a), and 38A, and Schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002? (point # 3)

(9) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, to conclude that he could commit offences against me under:

• (1) Malicious Communications Act 1988: s.1(1), (2A), (3) - ‘Offence of sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety’ (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.43) (a criminal offence)

• (2) Protection from Harassment Act 1997: s.1(1), (2) - 'Prohibition of harassment', as defined by s.7 of the Act – ‘Interpretation of this group of sections', including 7.(3A) 'aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring harassment' (as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.44(1)(2)) (a criminal offence)
• As well as against my website Host by sending his emails of 16 March and 20 March 2007. Although he backed down in his 20 March email, S Dowling further attempted to bully and intimidate my Host by asking: "who deals with any complaints about websites in the US and I'll pass this on to the victim"

• (3) Crime and Disorder Act 1998: s.32(1)(a) - 'Racially or religiously aggravated harassment' (as amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, s 39(1), (5)(b), (6)(d)) (a criminal offence)

• (4) Defamation Act 1996

• (5) Communications Act 2003: s127 - 'Improper use of public electronic communications network' (as amended)

...- by sending his malicious, libellous and scurrilous 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 emails to my website Host - instigated by Andrew Ladsky, and in which, clearly at the behest of Ladsky, he branded me a "Nazi" because of my racial origin? (point # 3)

(10) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling to conclude that the Criminal Procedure and Investigations 1996 Act could be ignored?

(11) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, to conclude that he could breach the Metropolitan Police Service code that “MPS personnel must not use MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail…containing racist,…defamatory, offensive,…material” by sending his racist, xenophobic emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 to my website Host? (point # 3)

(12) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, to conclude that he is entitled to not only formulate - a FALSE opinion as to my mental health - but also record it on the police system, as well as communicate it to social services - with the obvious intention of getting me 'locked-up'? (2007 - Key point #8)

(13) WHAT LED Chief Superintendent Mark Heath / Other Chief Superintendent to conclude that - he, and the named officers - were exempt from compliance with the Parliament-endorsed police's Code of Conduct (Regulations 2004, in force in 2007) - including NOT CONTACTING ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME in relation to the so-called "complaint" against me by Andrew Ladsky - consequently TOTALLY DENYING ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS? (point # 3, including my - non-lawyer - assessment of breach of Code of Conduct)

(14) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling - ET.AL at Kensington police - to conclude that they could ALL overlook - ALL the reported 'black on white' evidence on my website - of criminal offences committed against me (and my fellow leaseholders) by Andrew Ladsky et.al. and their puppets, under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; the Fraud Act 2006 ; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; the Theft Act 1968 / Theft Amendment Act 1996 ; the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ; s.32(1)(a) - Racially or religiously aggravated harassment of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ; Etc.? (points # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 5)

(15) - WHAT LED ALL involved in the 2002, 2003 and 2007 "crime reports" of which I am the "data subject" - including their supervisors and Chief Superintendent at the time - to conclude that they are exempt from compliance with s.4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 that sets "a duty on data controllers to comply with the Principles" comprised under Parts I and II in Sch.1, and that, in the context of the First Principle, handling of personal and sensitive personal data, are likewise at liberty to contravene Sch.2 and Sch.3 of the Act - resulting, overall, in numerous, repeated contraventions of the Act? (point # 5.1).

(16) - In 2009-10, WHAT LED Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards', Kensington police - and Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, on whose behalf he also replied - to conclude that they could keep on breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 - by refusing to make amendments and deletions? (point # 5) - including following my 2 June 2010 s.10 Notice - under s.10(1) of the Act (point #5.1) And, in the context of the latter, failing to respond "within 21 days", as per s.10(3) - thereby committing an additional contravention: a breach of the Sixth Principle as detailed under para.8(b) of Sch.1 of the Act.

(17) - WHAT LED Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards', Kensington police - and Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, on whose behalf he also replied - to conclude that they could commit an offence against me under s.1(1), (3) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - by refusing to acknowledge my claims and consequent demands (point # 5) - thereby causing me totally unwarranted great distress? (point # 5)

(18) WHAT LED Chief Superintendent Mark Heath to conclude that he, his police officers, including Steve McSorley - are exempt from compliance with the Parliament-endorsed Standards of Professional Behaviour, as well as with the Home Office Guidance? (My - non-lawyer - assessment of breach of Code of Conduct)

(19) WHAT LED Chief Superintendent Mark Heath to conclude that he, his police officers, including Steve McSorley and the officers involved in October 2010 when, in the course of seven visits to Kensington & Chelsea police I attempted - in vain - to file complaints of harassment - are exempt from compliance with the Equality Act 2010: s.4- ‘The protected characteristics’, in particular: s.9(1)(b)(c)- ‘Race’, and s.11(a)- ‘Sex’ (see my profile) ; s.13(1)- ‘Direct discrimination’ (ditto) ; s.29(1), 2(c), (4), 5(a)(c)- ‘Provision of services’ ; s.112(1)- 'Aiding contraventions' - by the way they have and continue to treat me since these sections came into force (1 Oct 10)? (Assessment further reinforced "on the balance of probabilities" (Police (Performance) Regulations 2008 , Reg.8(a)) - in light of the treatment in 2002, 2003 and 2007)

(20) WHAT LED the Directorate of Professional Standards, including DI Crispin Lee, to conclude that it could endorse Kensington police's non-compliance with the requirements of: the Data Protection Act 1998; the Parliament-endorsed police's Standards of Professional Behaviour; the Home Office Guidance? (point # 5) (My - non-lawyer - assessment of breach of Code of Conduct)

(21) WHAT LED the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson - to conclude that he could ignore the conduct of Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander? (point # 5)

(22) - WHAT LED Alan Johnson, the then Home Office Minister (Home Office), to conclude that: (1) Kensington police, its Professional Standards department; the Directorate of Professional Standards -are at liberty to ignore the Parliament-endorsed police's Standards of Professional Behaviour, the Home Office Guidance, and the policing plans, 2nd point ; (2) his other department, the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), can TOTALLY FAIL to perform its statutory duty - including approving of Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police's breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 - by telling me that I "need to refer my complaint to the Information Commissioner in order to 'perhaps' get the issues addressed" - and, in the process, also ignore the police's Standards of Professional Behaviour, as well the Home Office Guidance? (point # 5)

(23) - WHAT LED ALL to conclude that, in relation to Andrew Ladsky in 2002, 2003 and 2007, they could ignore the repeated offences of harassment against me committed by him / under his instructions - evidently driven by hate, as well as racial prejudice, because I am part German descent, hence criminal offences under (1) Protection from Harassment Act: s.1(1), (2)- 'Prohibition of harassment' ; s.2- 'Offence of harassment' ; s.4(1), (2), (4)- 'Putting people in fear of violence' ; s.7(1), (2)- Interpretation of this group of sections', including s.7(3A)- 'Collective harassment' (as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s.44(1)(2)) ; (2) Crime and Disorder Act 1998: s.32(1)- 'Racially or religiously aggravated harassment'

(24) - WHAT LED ALL to conclude that, in relation to Andrew Ladsky in 2003 and 2007, they could - AMONG MANY OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENCES - he committed / had carried out on his "instructions" - ignore s.5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967: "Penalties for...giving false information: Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report tending to show that an offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more [level 4 on the standard scale] or to both" (Reference to level on the standard scale substituted by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, ss 38, 46)

In light of events as a - NON-LAWYER - I also ask:

WHAT LED Chief Superintendent Mark Heath (point # 5 and #5.1) and previous Chief Superintendents, DI Paul Webster, DC DR Adams, DC SP Crockett, Sir Toby Harris (point #1), PC Neil Watson 206BS, "Crime Investigator" (point #2), TDC Simon J Dowling and PC 474BS K O’Brien (point #3) , the police Public Access Office, Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley, KCP Professional Standards, Detective Inspector Crispin Lee, Directorate of Professional Standards, the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, PC Giles, Sergeant Avison, et.al. - and hence, (bar the last two), the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, heading ALL these departments...

... – to conclude that they were / are exempt from compliance with my rights under the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998? In particular:

s.6(1)- "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right…"; s.6(6) "An act includes a failure to act"

Human Rights Articles comprised under Sch.1 of the HRA 1998

Article 2 - Right to life - "1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law". Under s.6(1) of the HRA the State has a positive obligation to take particular steps to protect women from the acts of others (see My Diary Oct 10)

Article 3 – The prohibition of torture - “No one shall be subjected to…degrading treatment or punishment”. The State has an absolute obligation to ensure compliance with this Article.

Repeated, wilful, malicious, discrimination, entailing contempt, lack of respect, designed to humiliate and debase the individual (as the police has done to me since 2002, and continued to do during my visits in Oct 10, as well as by ignoring my repeated demands in relation to the "crime reports" ) has been found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to amount to degrading treatment.

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial - 1. “In the determination…of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” i.e. criminal charges MUST be determined at first instance by a court of law complying with the guarantees of Article 6.1 – and the individual must be given an adequate opportunity to meet those allegations by making representations.

2. “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”

ECtHR’s definition of a ‘charge’ for the purposes of Article 6.1: “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”; “Can be constituted by any official act that carries the implication that the individual has committed a criminal offence, and likewise substantially affect the situation of the individual”

Article 8 – Right to respect for private life - 1. “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”

2. “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”

The State cannot justify the infringement of my Article 8 Right as:

• (1) It is processing data that (i) falsely accuses me of having committed “crimes”; (2003 ; 2007) (ii) maliciously describes me as “suffering from mental issues” - and communicating this to social services, and probably to other parties.

• (2) Doing this for the very obvious, malicious purpose of intending to use the data against me at a later stage to 'put me out of action'. Supporting evidence: (i) Comments recorded by S Dowling on the 2007 "crime report", added to his "contacting social services" ; (ii) Mark Heath et.al. refusing to destroy the so-called "crime reports" ; (iii) Sergeant Avison's 17 Oct 10 confirmation of an intention to use the reports against me in court; (iv) medical 'specialist' wanting to lock me up on 7 May 08 ; (v) [ADD- work] ; (vi) attempts to assess 'my state of mind' on 3 Apr 10 and 17 Apr 10 ; (vii) evidence that Britain DOES lock-up 'inconvenient' people - including example of Maurice Kirk, and of an MP's constituent.

• (3) Failing to give me access to an extensive part of my personal data: (i) extensive blocked out data on the "crime reports" ; (ii) failing to address any of my questions in: my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request ; in my 13 August 2009 reply to the "crime reports" (repeated in my 20 September 2009 letter) (point #5 ; point #5.1)

Nor can the State justify infringing my Article 8 Right through: (i) daily monitoring of my movements (examples in My Diary 23 May 10 ; 17 Oct 10); (ii) monitoring and interference with my mobile phones, post, emails and computer.

Other evidence in support of my conclusion: (i) Kensington police et.al. spending, up to 2003, £5-7million of taxpayer money trying to get Dizaei's 'scalp' - and the unbelievable lengths they went to ; (ii) the experience of other whistleblowers ; (iii) the experience of other victims of injustice ; (iv) 'Surveillance Britain'

To justify surveillance under Article 8.2, it is necessary for the State / public authorities to show that: (a) the activity in question is “prescribed by law” i.e. the legal basis must be identified, and established; there is no scope for states to infer grounds for restrictions that are not explicitly stated; and (b) it is “necessary” and “proportionate”.

As blatantly obvious by my experience and that of others, the measures intended to prevent abuse of the surveillance legislation are ignored. (See My Diary 2011-Introduction)

I AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - NOT a criminal.

Under which, ‘legally-supported’, ‘high degree of necessity’, do the State and public authorities - in this 'democracy' - justify having me under this highly intrusive, extreme and continuous surveillance as though I were a terrorist – with the outcome of: blighting my life; getting me to cut off ties with all my contacts in the UK to avoid their being also under surveillance - bar individuals who, like me, are fighting for justice and redress – as many also report being subjected to similar treatment, etc?

I have the right to create and foster relationships with others, without fearing that my doing this will put them under surveillance. Ditto in relation to maintaining my relationships with my family.

The extreme and continuous surveillance I am being subjected to is also a breach of Article 2, as it is degrading, extremely distressing, and a direct attack on my human dignity.

Concurrent with this, the State and public authorities are processing personal data about me, including photographs, and film footage – that are shown / given to the goons who are following me, monitoring me. (Recent - undeniable - evidence of this: the goon on the bus in Mar 11). Under Article 8, the State has a positive obligation to afford me access to this data - which, no doubt, is in the same vein as the so-called “crime reports”.

Article 10 - Freedom of expression - 1 "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...".

Contrast that with the lengths KCPN and the rest of the 'Brotherhood' went to to try to get my website closed down in 2007 and how they opted to punish me for 'daring' to set it up (after 5 years of fighting - in vain).

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination - “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or status”

This Article is engaged as a result of the violation of my above rights. As glaringly obvious, these breaches of my rights are motivated by blatant discrimination. The cause of this discrimination is because I ‘dare’ to stand-up and fight for my rights, including setting-up this website - combined with my profile.

ECtHR’s meaning of discrimination “a difference in treatment which has no reasonable and objective justification”. This is evidenced by the flagrant difference in the treatment of Andrew Ladsky by the police - (and the rest of the 'Brotherhood') v the way I have and continue to be treated - as detailed on this page. (See also Home page-Overview)

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

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

DC DR Adams followed this by saying “You won’t be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky!” To which I replied “How do you know that? Are you talking to him?” Given that DC Adams had ‘not obtained’ the name of the subscriber for the landline number, how could he be so certain that “there is no link with Andrew Ladsky?” My answer: because he knew that the subscriber for the landline number was Andrew Ladsky – and he was not going to reveal it. (see key point # 9, above)

DC Adams then said “As you have complained, my superior will be in touch with you next week. Goodbye!” (NB: I copied DC Adams on my 13 March 2002 complaint to the Police Complaints Authority).

In his 23 April 2002 reply, DI Paul Webster, states

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

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

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

"Mr Policeman, a woman swore at me"  

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

Kensington police certainly has no sense of the ridicule.

(3) In 2007, continuation of Kensington police's wilful discrimination against me: WITHOUT CONTACTING ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME and, consequently, TOTALLY DENYING ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS - following, yet another so-called "complaint" against me by Andrew Ladsky - with the aim of getting my website closed down, TDC Simon J Dowling of the 'Notting Hill police station Community Safety Unit', made UNLAWFUL, malicious, scurrilous and libellous accusations against me to my website Host, FALSELY implying that I had committed "a crime" - as well as branding me a "Nazi" AND, in the process, impersonated an investigating officer - "Crime report" CR:5605839/07

As I wrote (pages 4 and 5) of my 2 February 2010 letter to, among others, Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner, in claiming "I am the police officer dealing with this crime", TDC Simon J Dowling impersonated an investigating officer.

In support of my conclusion, I stated "I know from the Channel 4 [TV] programme, Dispatches, on 21 September 2009, during which Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation said “We don’t know what PCSOs are doing on a case-by-case basis across the forces. There are 43 different models out there… They were brought in for the best of reasons but I think it was a deeply flawed experiment…” and, from the Mail on Sunday article of 20 September 2009 “How ‘plastic bobbies’ can fine you for fly-posting in Leicester, but not in London” that the role of a Community Support Officer is not standard – but I am sure that it does not include “investigating a crime”.

(See extracts from 21 Sep 09 Channel 4 (TV) programme Dispatches, and link to Mail on Sunday 20 Sep 09 article)

In fact, looking at the Police Reform Act 2002: s.38(5A), (5B), 6(a)- 'Police powers for police authority employees' ; s.38A- 'Standards powers and duties of community support officers' ; Sch.4- 'Powers exercisable by police civilians', Part 1- 'Community support officers' (which expands on s.38) ; Sch.5 which relate to "the standard powers and duties of a community support officer" - it is abundantly clear that the statutory functions of a 'Community Support Officer' do NOT include those of a (bent) investigating officer, and nor, indeed, do they include those of a (bent) medical practitioner.

While I did not complain at the time (for the reasons detailed earlier on) - I draw attention to the Code of Conduct, Reg.3 comprised under Sch.1 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 (that applied in March 2007): "6. Lawful orders - Officers should...oppose any improper behaviour, reporting it where appropriate". As evidenced by the "Crime report" CR:5605839/07, there were several other officers involved.

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

While the Notes to the 2004 Code of Conduct refer to "...conduct which could, if proved, bring or be likely to bring discredit to the police service should be investigated..." . Dowling certainly went out of his way to discredit the police, including in the eyes of my US website Host, and so did his colleagues.

WHY did they ALL collude? WHY have their supervisors not taken disciplinary action? WHY did they ALL conclude that they could ignore Regulations issued by the Secretary of State, and endorsed by Parliament?

I view this as 'gross misconduct' (*) 'Of course', Steve McSorley of 'Professional Standards', as spokesperson for Chief Superintendent Mark Heath disagreed. WHY are they turning a blind eye?

(*) While the police's definition of 'gross misconduct', "a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that dismissal would be justified", only appeared in the police-specifc legislation on 1 Dec 08, I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person, considering Oxford dictionary definition - would agree with my assessment.

Furthermore, s.90 of the Police Act 1996, 'Impersonation, etc.' states (1) "Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force..., or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member..., shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both". If that's the treatment for civilians, then it should surely be at least as much for insiders who falsely pretend to have certain statutory powers - and, on top of that, make false representations under these powers.

I also draw attention to s.38(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002 "A chief officer of police . . shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person—

(a)is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is designated;

(b)is capable of effectively carrying out those functions; and

(c)has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation"

(Media reports re. Community Support Officers: (1) "PCSOs account for more than half of police misconduct" (5 Feb 09, Daily Telegraph); "Support officer jailed for giving criminals information", (BBC, 7 Jul 10))

Why is it that the 'Community Safety Unit' did NOT contact me about what I report in My Diary?

WHAT KIND OF POLICE 'COMMUNITY SAFETY UNIT' IS THAT? CORRUPTED! And, like others in K&C police, at the service of the criminals. (see also events in October 2010)

(Others are also raising serious concerns about the police)

And Kensington & Chelsea police's position is that: "there is not enough evidence to take action against Mr Ladsky" ??? Yeah, right!

Compare this with events in 2003 when Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him"

And add to that my experience of Notting Hill police in 2007 (My Diary 16 Mar 07), and with Kensington & Chelsea police October 2010

And "the evidence" on my side of the fence spells:

C O R R U P T I O N!

(5) Continuation of the wilful discrimination against me by Kensington police - this time under the Data Protection Act 1998 following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - discrimination that is endorsed by the Met Commissioner and Home Office Secretary, as well as by the IPCC - forcing me to engage in months of endless letter-writing in an attempt to exert my rights and legitimate interests - and leading me to send a pre-action letter on 17 March 2011, followed by filing a claim on 19 April 2011. (Like Andrew Ladsky and his mob, they get their sadistic kicks out of tormenting the 'little people' and making them run like hamsters on a wheel)

My avenues to justice, redress and protection have been blocked from the very beginning of my horrific nightmare (Home page - Overview) which, as detailed under section 1, above, started with Kensington & Chelsea police in early 2002.

Police Public Access Office

The conduct of K&C police at the time, and subsequently in 2003 and 2007 - added to my conclusion that the police is monitoring me (while I cannot - yet - prove it, consideration of various events lead me to the conclusion that I am under surveillance) - lead me to want to know under which rule of law does the police consider itself entitled to treat me, a law-abiding, tax-paying, British VICTIM OF CRIME - as it has, and continues to do?

I therefore filed a 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request with the police, under the Data Protection Act 1998. (I did the same in relation to the Ministry of 'Justice', from which - as the innocent victim of crime - I have, likewise, suffered absolutely outrageous treatment - Legal-Home # C)

It led to my receiving three sets of computer printouts: (i) CR:5604102/02 ; (ii) CR:5602261/03 ; (iii) CR:5605839/07 - with a covering letter from the Public Access Office, dated 14 July 2009 (posted on 20 July - hence past the 40-day deadline for reply) telling me "If you consider the information to be incorrect please write to the above address, stating your concerns clearly and concisely"

As can be seen in my 13 August 2009 reply, supported by a 101 page bundle of 49 documents as justification - I have a lot of "concerns" about these reports as they contain a lot of, among others, "incorrect information" (The printouts are discussed, above, under the relevant year i.e. 2002, 2003 and 2007)

Continuing to breach my statutory rights (My questions, above) including my Human Rights (above) - in its typical dismissive, contemptuous, self-regarding, power-corrupted, arrogant style (my complaint in 2002) (and that of, among others, other public sector parties) - the 'reply' from Jenna Neville, Public Access Office of 25 August 2009 amounts to a 'Get lost!'. Indeed, the letter states:

“I have forwarded your concerns on to the Investigating Officer who will if he feels necessary update the report… If this is completed I will forward you a updated version”

“…I can confirm after making enquiries there is no further information we can provide you with”

Costing me yet, many more hours of my life, I replied to Jenna Neville on 20 September 2009, labouring the points in my 13 August 2009 reply, which I grouped under:

• “2.1 You hold data about me that are trumped-up accusations, unlawful, malicious, vicious attacks on my name, character and reputation"

• "2.2 You hold data about me that is false, a scurrilous, libellous, malicious attack on my name, character and reputation"

• "2.3 You hold data about me that is biased, corrupted, false, deceitful, conveys a false, misleading impression of me"

• "2.4 Highly pertinent evidence has been withheld to cover-up ‘inconvenient’ events, and as a means of disparaging me and discrediting me”...
  

...and emphasised my rights by capturing, on pages 3 to 7 of my reply, comprehensive extracts from the Data Protection Act 1998, as well as some from documents on the Information Commissioner website.

K&C police 'Professional Standards', Met Commissioner and Home Secretary

I also sent a 20 September 2009 letter to Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, Kensington police, headed "Kensington & Chelsea police is not exempt from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998" - relating what had happened (with documents in support: my 13 August and 20 September 2009 replies to the Public Access Office; its 25 August 2009 'Get lost!' 'response').

In this letter, I list 14 questions about K&C police ending with "Last but not least – as your officers have familiarised themselves with the content of my website - the right to turn a blind eye to criminal offences committed against me by Andrew Ladsky, including through ‘his puppets’ who “acted under his instructions” (e.g. Portner # 5.1). I follow this by listing: “The Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Fraud Act 2006; the Malicious Communications Act 1988; the Theft Act 1968 / Theft Amendment Act 1996; the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; Etc.”

I conclude with "As the above are very clearly in breach of, among others, the Police Professional Standards, as Head of K&C police: what are you going to do in the face of this litany of outrageous, gross misconduct?”

I also ask that "a letter is immediately sent to my website Host retrieving all the malicious, scurrilous and libellous accusations made against me by your member of staff, TDC Simon J Dowling of the ‘Community Safety Unit’, in his 16 and 20 March 2007 emails to my website Host (point # 3, above) – and that you copy me on this letter"

I also captured what I wrote in my 20 September 2009 reply to the Public Access Office, that "If this proves necessary, I will follow this with legal proceedings as per my rights under s.14 of the Act".

My 20 September 2009 letter to Mark Heath, led to a 22 September 2009 reply from "Steve McSorley, A/ Chief Inspector" who, while he did not specify it, I discovered on the Kensington police website is Kensington police head of 'Professional Standards & Performance' "responsible for all matters relating to complaints, misconduct and civil actions. He also heads the Operational Performance Unit and leads on improving the borough's performance around Citizen Focus". (NB: But when it comes to intimidation of the public in order to help 'their friend', they are not shy to put their title (real or fabricated) e.g. in 2003: "PC Neil Watson, Crime Investigator")

Having said that I "quite clearly expressed [my] concerns" McSorley 'suggested' I contact the Information Commissioner "if [I am] dissatisfied with [the] response from [the Public Access Office]" (Like Andrew Ladsky and his mob, they get their sadistic kicks out of tormenting you and making you run like a hamster on a wheel)

In my 8 October 2009 reply to McSorley, headed "In light of your role at Kensington & Chelsea police: how do you explain your response of 22 September 2009?", I noted the fact that he TOTALLY ignored both, the content of my 20 September 2009 letter to Mark Heath, and of the supporting enclosures i.e. my 13 August and 20 September 2009 replies to the police printouts.

On 8 October 2009, I copied my reply to Steve McSorley to Mark Heath, heading my letter "Do you endorse the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by Kensington & Chelsea police?" and report the fact that, in his 22 September 2009 'reply', McSorley has ignored ALL the content of my correspondence. I ask "Can you please confirm to me whether or not you endorse his conduct? If so: why? If not: how you will assist me".

I also ask "I would also like to know why, since 2002, I have been treated as I have by K&C police", and follow this by quoting extracts from the Equality and Human Rights Commission website, that I have the right to “Being treated fairly and with dignity… means that everybody should have access to public services…and the right to be treated fairly by those services. This applies to all public services… " (NB: I did not quote from the Parliament-endorsed police's Code Of Conduct and Standards of Professional Behaviour as I still needed to research - and digest - the voluminous amount of police-specific legislation - although it would clearly have made no difference).

One month later, I had not received a reply from either of them, leading me to send an 11 November 2009 chaser letter to Mark Heath, and to Steve McSorley.

It led to a 17 November 2009 reply from Sergeant Dave Jones, Staff Officer to the Borough Commander, that “The Borough Commander has asked Chief Inspector McSorley to write again to you in order to outline the previous advice given”. As I wrote in my 28 November 2009 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary "In other words, evidently repeat to me the equivalent of the ‘Get lost! We don’t care!’" Of course, I WAS PROVEN RIGHT (see below).

My 28 November 2009 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, was a 'cry for help', as well as intended to show the massive disconnect between my first-hand experience with the police - which I summarised, including the latest events. To support my demand for their assistance, I supported my letter with 11 enclosures to both (amounting to over 100 pages):

((1) my 28 May 09 Subject Access Request; (2) my 13 Aug 09 reply to the "crime reports"; (3) the 25 Aug 09 'reply' from the PAO; (4) my 20 Sep 09 reply; (5) my 20 Sep 09 letter to Mark Heath; (6) the 22 Sep 09 'reply' from Steve McSorley; (7) my 8 Oct 09 reply to McSorley; (8) my 8 Oct 09 letter to Heath; (9) my 11 Nov 09 chaser letter to Heath; (10 ) my 11 Nov 09 chaser letter to McSorley; (11) the 17 Nov 09 letter from Dave Jones)...

...- and what Sir Paul and Mr Johnson had recently said in the media, as well as claims on the police website, and the recent launch of the 'Policing Pledge':

•  Sir Paul Stephenson (1) In the context of the innocent bystander killed by the police at the G20 demonstration in 2009: “I can assure you that we [the police] are on your side” ; (2) The Community Service Unit website "Every crime has a bad effect on the victim but hate crimes are probably the most damaging. They happen when a person hates someone else enough to abuse them, attack them or commit some other offence against them… The more we know about these crimes and who commits them, the better we can work to prevent, detect and investigate them in the future. It's our job to identify what's happened and make sure that appropriate action is taken"...

•  Mr Johnson (1) Following the tragic suicide of Mrs Fiona Pilkington and of her handicapped daughter - reported to have made a total of "33 desperate calls to the police" - and got no help: “Police officers must visit every victim of crime”; (2) The relaunch of the 'Policing Pledge’ (triggered by the death of Mrs Pilkington and her daughter) - which starts with: “The police service in England and Wales will: 1. Work to keep you and your neighbourhoods safe from harm; 2. Always treat you fairly, with dignity and respect, ensuring that you have fair access to our services at all times”

Stating "Given the propensity to discredit me", I quote - from media reports - examples of: (1) other people's experience with the police (point # 9.2, below) ; (2) conclusions about the police by various parties (point # 9.2) ; (3) actions by the police (point # 9.2), etc.

I concluded my letter with "I hope you will change my perceptions by taking immediate action in relation to K&C police, and ensure the implementation of my rights: pursuing Andrew Ladsky and parties he instructed for the offences they committed against me; ensuring that police records are amended to reflect my feedback, and my outstanding questions answered"

(NB: Ditto in terms of my not quoting from the Parliament-endorsed police's Code Of Conduct and Standards of Professional Behaviour: I still needed to research - and digest - the voluminous amount of police-specific legislation - although it would clearly have made no difference).

Post sending this letter, I took delivery of a 20 November 2009 letter from Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards', Kensington police, said to be in acknowledgement of my 8 October 2009 letter to him and to Mark Heath – (hence, six weeks later). (As I had predicted), he states:

“For the sake of clarity, may I stress that I do not accept that there has been any “gross misconduct” by any of our officers in relation to the various crime reports in which you are named.

(NB: Contrast that with (1) my experience with K&C police - as summarised in my below letter of 2 Dec 10 to Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson; (2) the Code of Conduct issued by the Secretary of State, and endorsed by Parliament - that was in force at the time of the reports. The clear conclusion is that the officers involved at the time of these reports have breached ALL the components of the Code of Conduct)

Nor do I accept that TDC Dowling made “malicious, scurrilous or libellous allegations” when he contacted your website host. (NB: see point # 3, above)

With regard to the wording of the crime reports, I am satisfied that this represents an accurate account of what police were told at the time even if you do not agree with what was said by third parties.

Consequently I… will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports… unless enforcement notice is served by the Information Commissioner”

In my 2 December 2009 letter to the Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, headed "Head of Kensington police approves of illegal conduct by some of its officers", I highlight McSorley's comment “I am satisfied that this represents an accurate account of what police were told at the time…Consequently I… will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports…” and state "What a very damning indictment!". I follow this by quoting the Data Protection Act 1998 that "the data controller has an overriding duty to process personal data fairly and lawfully", as well as comments by the Information Commissioner and state:

"It certainly IS “reasonably expected” of the police to investigate third party claims, including obtaining supporting evidence. And it IS likewise “reasonably expected” of the police to do this BEFORE accusing an individual of having committed criminal actions"

(NB: Recording of false information to suit the police's interests - in the wider sense - is, in addition to my case, well documented - e.g. media reports under section # 9.2, below)

Drawing from my 13 August and 20 September 2009 replies to the Public Access Office, in my 2 December 2009 letter to Alan Johnson and Paul Stephenson I wrote "It follows from this that, as Chief Superintendent and Borough Commander for Kensington & Chelsea police, Mark Heath:

•  "1. Approves of his officers NOT contacting me – AT ANY POINT IN TIME – in relation to the 2007 so-called ‘complaint’ against me ‘by Andrew Ladsky’ – giving them free rein to communicate unlawful, fabricated lies against me to third parties, as well as record them on the police systems" (point # 3)

•  "2. Approves of his officers defaming my name, character and reputation to a third party by making – totally unsupported - unlawful, libellous and malicious accusations against me to my website Host – with the aim of scaring my website Host into closing down my website, by: (1) TDC Simon J Dowling claiming in his 16 March 2007 email to my website Host that I had ‘committed a crime’ “I am the police officer dealing with this crime”; (2) stating that I have used “racially abusive terms towards Jewish people from the Nazi’s”; (3) claiming that “This is directed at a particular person”" (point # 3)

•  "3. Approves of his officers making unlawful, racist, xenophobic comments by branding me “a Nazi” - by TDC Simon J Dowling stating in his 20 March 2007 email to my website Host “The producer of this website is of franco-german origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime” – and therefore approves of his officers breaching the police code that “MPS personnel must not use MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail…containing racist,…defamatory, offensive,…material”" (point # 3)

•  "4. Approves of his officers recording on the police systems expressions of opinion about my mental health that are malicious, scurrilous and libellous. Concurrently, of approaching social services, in what I conclude, was part of an attempt at getting me sectioned – with the ultimate objective of gaining the closure of my website “She is obviously extremely paranoid”; “I believe she may have some mental issues so will be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of her”" (Point # 3, Key point # 8)

•  "5. Approves of his officers “fully recording” Andrew Ladsky’s so-called ‘complaint’ against me in 2003 as “SUBSTANT/Offence of harassment” - BEFORE even contacting me" (point # 2)

•  "6. Approves of his officers threatening me on the say-so of Andrew Ladsky e.g. 27 January 2003 letter - which was the first form of contact by K&C police following Ladsky’s so-called ‘complaint - “Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police… Please avoid (if you can) any confrontation with Mr Ladsky or there may be further consequences”" (point # 2)

•  "7. Approves of his officers bullying me and intimidating me into dropping my 2002 complaint, as well as telling me “You won’t be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky” – with the effect of undermining my credibility, as it can be construed that I backed down on my complaint" (point # 1)

•  "8. Approves of his officers repeatedly processing data that gives an inaccurate description of Andrew Ladsky’s role in Jefferson House – by: (1) describing him as “a neighbour”, instead of what he is ‘landlord for Jefferson House’; (2) stating in 2007 that I “seem to think that Ladsky is behind the company who has sent these letters [from the ‘managing’ agents, Martin Russell Jones]” – with the aim of giving him scope to play the ‘poor innocent victim’, as well as give some weight to his trumped-up, malicious and slanderous accusations against me" (points # 1, # 2 , # 3)

•  "9. Approves of his officers totally failing to challenge Ladsky on the veracity of his accusations against me, including failing to obtain supporting evidence - as it would discredit his complaints against me" (points # 2 , # 3)

•  "10. Approves of his officers totally failing to probe, and therefore failing to record the context of situations/ surrounding events - as it would discredit Ladsky’s complaints against me e.g. in 2007, not determining the content of “The service charge letter sent by the managing agents to all the residents” and stating that “[I] took exception to this” – as it would require capturing that (1) “the letter” demanded the sum of £736,000 ; (2) Ladsky followed this by having a West London County Court claim filed against me and another 13 flats – proving that I was not the only one “taking exception” ; (3) c.£500,000 of the demand was knocked-off during the tribunal hearings (NB: London LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) ; (4) Ladsky subsequently made me an ‘offer’ that was £8,000 below his original demand" (NB: WLCC # 10 , # 12 , # 13)

•  "11. Approves of his officers recording on the police systems – totally unsupported, unlawful, libellous and malicious accusations against me – many of which I only discovered as a result of making the 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request"

- "1. in 2003 – (1) that I committed an “Offence of harassment” ; (2) that I “wrote letters accusing [Ladsky] of theft” (but as it turned out: he DID commit theft – on a grand scale) ; (3) “swore at Ladsky approximately 3 or 4 times” ; (4) that “This verbal abuse started in November 2002” – and the concurrent, equally false implication, that I had been doing this on an ongoing basis since November 2002" (point # 2);

- "2. in 2007 – (1) that I committed “a hate crime”; “a racist, anti-Semitic offence” ; (2) that my website “is alleged to contain anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-Asian pictures and text” ; (3) that “The specific remarks and pictures that are being complained about are contained throughout [my website]” ; (4) that it contains “a lot of slanderous comments on the site mainly directed at [Ladsky] but also at K&C and even MPs, the Prime Minister and DPM. Also against solicitors and many others”; etc." (point # 3)

•  "12. Approves of his officers failing to record correspondence – because ‘inconvenient’ to Ladsky / his officers, and / or in order to disparage me / discredit me / lessen my complaint e.g."

"- in 2002: my 26 March 2002 fax to DC Adams in which I reiterate the BT evidence he had already been supplied with, one month previously - which totally refuted his ‘story’;" (point # 1)

"- in 2003: my 11 February 2003 letter to PC Neil Watson in which I asked “for precise detail – in writing – of the accusation against me;" (point # 2)

"- in 2007: (1) from my website Host to K&C police asking “Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?” ; (2) the 20 March 2007 email from TDC Simon J Dowling to my website Host, in which he backed down from his accusations, stating “Thanks for your reply, yes there are laws relating to false reporting. If you are unable to close the site down I will let the victim know as there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident…” (while still making an unsupported, libellous accusation: “racist incident”)" (point # 3)

•  "13. Approves of his officers recycling false accusations against me from Ladsky’s 2003 ‘complaint’ in order to add weight to his equally false accusations in ‘his’ 2007 ‘complaint’ e.g. “There is a previous CRIS 5602261/03 which relates to an harassment of [Ladsky] by Ms Rawé no further action was taken at the time. But it shows Ms Rawé used to swear at [Ladsky] when seeing [Ladsky] in the communal area. This was when the service charge dispute first arose”" (point # 3)

•  "14. Approves of his officers failing to record the content of correspondence, as well as failing to act on it – because ‘inconvenient’ - such as (1) my 25 March 2002 fax to DC Adams in which I captured his claim that the resident had “admitted to having made the anonymous phone calls to [me]” – and asked him to confirm that what I wrote in the fax accurately reflected what he told me ; (2) my 2 April 2002 letter to DI Webster in which I provide comprehensive detail of events with DC Adams" (point # 1)

•  "15. Approves of his officers lying; knowingly record false data; telling me / writing one thing to me, and capturing something totally different in the police database – with the aim of covering-up events / avoid capturing ‘inconvenient’ data / disparaging me and discrediting me e.g."

"- in 2002, (1) falsely telling me that all the calls had been made by the resident v. recording in the report that “there is no way of tracing which telephone was used” ; (2) falsely telling me that BT had said that the second number was also one its own ; (3) recording my landline number as being the source of the anonymous phone calls to my landline phone;" (point # 1)

"- in 2003, (1) PC Neil Watson falsely recording that I did not respond to his 27 January 2003 letter ; (2) PC Watson stating in this letter “any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police…” v. recording Ladsky’s so-called ‘complaint’ against me under the ‘Main classification’ as “SUBSTANT/Offence of harassment”" (point # 2)

•  "16. Approves of his officers repeatedly ignoring the evidence, and fabricate stories upon stories to avoid revealing it – with the aim of clearing Ladsky of involvement e.g. in relation to the data supplied by BT in 2002 – leading DC Adams to state “…in this case there was absolutely no evidence to link [Ladsky] with this matter”" (point # 1)

•  "17. Approves of his officers failing to record the content of verbal communication from the police to me – because ‘inconvenient’ to his officers / Ladsky’s ‘complaint’ - in 2002: (1) that the person alleged to have made the anonymous phone calls had “her mobile phone stolen in November 2001” and that “the phone had mysteriously reappeared at her door four months later” ; (2) bullying me and intimidating me into dropping my complaint, as well as telling me “You won’t be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky”" (point # 1)

•  "18. Approves of his officers failing to acknowledge that at least four of my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House also complained to K&C police of suffering harassment from Andrew Ladsky – thereby lessening my complaint against him" (points # 1 , # 4).

•  "19. Last but not least - approves of his officers – who claimed to have ‘looked’ at my website - turning a blind eye to the ‘mountain’ of overwhelming ‘black on white’ evidence of breaches of numerous Acts, that are punishable by imprisonment, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Fraud Act 2006; the Malicious Communications Act 1988; the Theft Act 1968 / Theft Amendment Act 1996; the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994. Etc. It follows that, among other, Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police:"

•  "20. Approves of his officers breaching my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998:

- to ensure that data held about me is accurate, lawful and fair – and thereby approves of his officers holding data about me that causes me damage and distress;

- to be provided with the data processed about me – to ensure that fair processing requirements have been complied with, as well as allow me to submit subject access requests to other processors of my personal data"

•  "21. Approves of his officers breaching my rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 – among others: “to be treated fairly and with dignity by the police and without prejudice” (Equality and Human Rights Commission website http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain)"

"In a nutshell: Mark Heath approves of his officers providing assistance to a crook in shutting-up his victim - by whatever means".

The follow-up to my 28 November and 2 December 2009 letters to Sir Paul Stephenson and Mr Johnson were:

(1) A 23 December 2009 letter from the Home Office's Direct Communications Unit, stating “In writing to Sir Paul Stephenson you have taken the right course of action. It is the Chief Officer who is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Office. The Home Officer and its Ministers are not able to act as an avenue of appeal, and have no power to influence or intervene in any investigations”

Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS)

(2) A 3 December 2009 letter from Sir Paul Stephenson's Office that my “letters dated 28th November and 2nd December” have “been forwarded to Inspector Campbell McKelvie, Directorate of Professional Standards Customer Service Team”

It was followed by an 8 December 2009 letter from Hema Patel, Caseworker, Directorate of Professional Standards, Customer Service Team – posted eight days later - on 16 December 2009, enclosing a one-page photocopy headed “What happens next?”, described in the letter as “an information leaflet explaining the various processes” - and asking me for a telephone number on which I can be contacted. I took delivery of the letter on the 24th, and replied on 28 December 2009.

As I report in my 2 February 2010 letter, headed "When am I due to be killed?", to, among others, Sir Paul Stephenson and Mr Johnson: "What has happened since then? TOTAL SILENCE! I am reporting that (1) I am the victim of crime – supporting my claim with a ‘mountain’ of ‘black on white’ evidence ; (2) my local police station has not only opted to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the evidence, it has blatantly sided with my attacker ; (3) I have a death threat hanging over my head…and THAT is your response Sir Stephenson?!? That is your interpretation of your department’s legal remit? WHY? Are you counting on “my not having long to live”?" (My Diary 15 Jun 09 death threat)

The next correspondence was a letter from Crispin Lee, Detective Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards, Prevention and Organisational Learning Command, Putney Bridge - dated 21 January 2010 - posted two weeks later, (2nd class), on 4 February 2010 = on the day that my 2 February 2010 letter was delivered to (among others) Sir Paul Stephenson's Office. Of course, DI Lee does NOT refer to my letter - mentioning only my 2 December 2009 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson.

I replied to DI Lee on 18 February 2010, taking each point of his letter in turn (preceding this by asking what his objective was in posting his 21 January letter to me on 4 February):

•  "in connection to the complaint [I] made on 2 December 2009” - To avoid any confusion, I captured an integral copy of my 2 December 2009 letter (copy). I also relate "what I have complained of in my 2 February 2010 letter to Sir Paul, as your letter to me was posted on 4 February 2010"

•  “I have reviewed the issues you raise and I have decided to apply to the Independent Complaints Commission (IPCC) to dispense with your complaint" - to which I replied "Yes, it is abundantly clear that you want to ‘get rid’ of my complaint"

•  "This is because I consider that you made your complaint more than 12 months after the alleged misconduct without good reason;...” - I point out that (1) "as evidenced by the above, your assessment is incorrect"`; (2) "It is fascinating to contrast your response with that of 20 November 2009 from Steve McSorley – also of ‘Professional Standards’ (above) – who, as captured above, has not raised any ‘difficulty’ in arriving at his assessment" ; (3) I quote DI Lee's role, and state "No wonder many in the police behave as they do – starting with some individuals in Kensington & Chelsea police" (See IPCC, below, for my comments)

•  "...that your complaint has been made only because you have been unable to obtain the result that you desire through the Public Access Office..." - My reply "Ditto re. my comment about your role"

•  "...and that given the time elapsed it is impracticable to investigate the issues about which you are complaining” - to which I replied:...

... "1. Where, in the Data Protection Act 1998, does it specify a time limit for a data subject to seek – and obtain – an end to the processing of data that is false, unlawful, misleading, scurrilous, libellous, biased, corrupted, incomplete in some very significant aspects – as well as obtain correction of the data to ensure that it is “fair, lawful and accurate”?

2. Ditto re. Steve McSorley’s 20 November 2009 assessment.

3. What a great message to criminals: ‘Make sure you don’t get caught in the 12 months following your crime. Then, you’ll have nothing to fear, as the police won’t pursue you’.

4. “impracticable” = ‘not in the interest of the officers concerned’ – as, based on the overwhelming ‘black on white’ evidence, they can rightfully be accused of corruption"

Under point 5, I reminded Lee that, with my 13 August 2009 reply, I also supplied a bundle of 49 supporting documents.

'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

(Continuation of my 18 February 2009 reply to DI Lee, Directorate of Professional Standards)

•  "The IPCC will consider my request and inform you if they have granted a dispensation or whether we are required to deal with your complaint” - In my reply I asked whether DI Lee was (1) "expecting the IPCC to exempt Kensington & Chelsea police from compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998?" ; (2) "expecting the IPCC to turn a blind eye to what I report?"

I also wrote "I hope that Nick Hardwick, Chairman of the IPCC will be true to his words, reported in The Independent article of 13 February 2010, “Root out corrupt officers, police told” :

“The [Dizaei case] (point # 9, below) is a wake-up call, let’s not wait, let’s not go through this cycle again. We need a consistent and determined effort from the top, from the police leaders. There has to be a consistent message that this [corruption] is not acceptable”

“… “There are some people who say this is a very uncomfortable message. They do not want to look too hard [for corruption] and they do not want to hear this. But Dizaei teaches us that if we do not deal with it now, then in the end, it will just get worse. No one is talking about witch-hunt, we just need to be really consistent about this…”

“…By its nature you do not know how much corruption is there. But it is always there. We just do not know how much is beneath the water”…

…as what I am reporting is evidence of corruption by various individuals at Kensington & Chelsea police"

•  “Until that decision is made no further action will be taken with your complaint” - to which I replied "The more accurate statement in the case of your Office for ‘Professional Standards’ is, like that of your counterpart at Kensington police: “We will continue to NOT take any action”

I stated that I was copying my letter to the IPCC - covering letter of 18 February 2010 (as can be seen from the last 2 pages: (1) I posted the letter, 'Special Delivery', on 19th Feb; (2) the Royal Mail tracking system confirmed delivery on 22nd Feb)

As I anticipated from DI Crispin Lee's letter of '21 Jan 10' (i.e. 4 Feb 10) (as well as from my very extensive first-hand experience of complaining, including to the police in 2002) - and in spite of the statutory definition of 'a complaint' - the IPCC blindly colluded with Kensington police. Indeed:

(1) in 'his' 22 February 2010 letter to me, 'the IPCC Casework Manager, Matthew Johnson', wrote:

"I am writing about the complaint you made on 7th December about officers of the Metropolitan Police Service"

"By law, the police have to investigate or locally resolve every complaint they record. (NB: Police Reform Act 2002). However, if by the time the complaint is made, more than 12 months have passed... the police force may ask us to agree that they dispense with the complaint. If the complaint is dispensed with then they do not need to carry out any further investigation.

"The incidents you are complaining of appear to have occurred in 2002, 2003 and 2007 and therefore the Metropolitan Police Service has applied to us for a dispensation"

"If you would like this investigation to continue, you must write to me within seven days of this letter providing good reasons for the delay in making your complaint"

"If we (NB: The TRUE "we"? = the police) do not hear from you, we may grant the request and your complaint will not be investigated further.

"If you do provide a sound explanation for the delay I should make you aware that I am also considering the dispensation on the grounds of 'abuse of process' (that the complaints procedure does not exist in order for crime reports to be amended - there being another, more appropriate, remedy in the form of the Information Commissioner), and 'not reasonably practicable to investigate, (the length of time that has passed since the incidents occurred brings the practicality and value of any investigation into question)"

It follows (doesn't it? :-) ) that DI Crispin Lee, DPS, will have supplied the IPCC caseworker with:

• (1) “Crime reports” CR:5604102/02 (2002) (32 pages); CR:5602261/03 (2003) (33 pages); CR:5605839/07 (2007) (31 pages)

• (2) Following receiving the three "crime reports", my (36-page) reply of 13 Aug 09 to the Public Access Office (PAO), supported by a 101 page bundle of 49 documents (above)

• (3) The PAO ‘Get lost!’ reply of 25 Aug 09 (above)

• (4) The (38-page) follow-on letter of 20 Sep 09 I was forced to write to the PAO as a result its ‘Get lost!’, and in which, on pages 3-7, I included extracts from the DPA 1998 (above)

• (5) My 20 Sep 09 letter to Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, headed “Kensington & Chelsea police is not exempt from compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998", and in which I list 14 questions relating to the three “crime reports” - and with which I copied him on my 13 Aug 09 and 20 Sep 09 letters to the PAO, as well as its 25 Aug 09 'reply' (above)

• (6) The 22 Sep 09 letter from Steve McSorley, A/ Chief Inspector - who, I discovered, heads ‘Professional Standards & Performance' at Kensington police, and concurrently 'complaints and misconduct matters' – telling me to “contact the Information Commissioner if [I am] dissatisfied with [the] response from [the Public Access Office]" (above)

• (7) My 8 Oct 09 letter to McSorley challenging him on his reply in light of his role (above)

• (8) My 8 Oct 09 letter to Heath, headed “Do you endorse the treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by Kensington & Chelsea police?” In this letter, I also ask "I would also like to know why, since 2002, I have been treated as I have by K&C police", and follow this by quoting extracts from the Equality and Human Rights Commission website”. I supported this letter with: (1) the 22 Sep 09 letter from McSorley; (2) my 8 Oct 09 reply; (3) my 20 Sep 09 letter to Heath (above)

• (9) My chaser letters of 11 Nov 09 to Heath and to McSorley as, one month later, they had not replied to my correspondence (above)

• (10) The 17 Nov 09 reply from Sergeant Dave Jones, Staff Officer, on behalf of Heath that he asked McSorley to reply (above)

• (11) The 20 Nov 09 letter from McSorley denying all my claims, as well as refusing to meet my demands (above)

• (12) My 2 Dec 09 letter to the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, in which I reproduced McSorley’s letter of 20 Nov 09 (on which I copied them), and, in relation to his excuse “I am satisfied that this represents an accurate account of what police were told at the time…Consequently I… will not be making any alterations to the various crime reports…” state: "What a very damning indictment!" and quote key obligations imposed on data controllers by the DPA 1998. I follow this by listing conclusions to be drawn about Mark Heath in light of his refusal to address my demands (above, including the conclusions)

• (13) The 8 Dec 09 letter from Hema Patel, DPS, posted eight days later, enclosing a one page copy of a leaflet “What happens next?” and asking me for my telephone number (above)

• (14) My (above) 2 Feb 10 letter to Stephenson and Johnson headed “When am I due to be killed?” – referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat, as there was no follow-up from DPS to my 28 Dec 09 letter (above) and, likewise, no follow-up to the content of my correspondence since my initial letter of 28 Nov 09 to both of them (above) - which I concluded with “ensuring that police records are amended to reflect my feedback, and my outstanding questions answered”

• (15) The ’21 Jan 10’ letter from DI Crispin Lee, DPS, posted two weeks later, on 4 Feb 10 i.e. on the day that my 2 Feb 10 letter was delivered to Stephenson, Johnson et.al. (above)

Note also that in my 18 Feb 10 letter to Crispin Lee - on which I copied the IPCC - I captured many of the above events, and reproduced most of my 2 Dec 09 letter to Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson. Under point 5, to Lee’s claim that my complaint was “more than 12 months after the alleged misconduct”, I replied: “As evidenced by the above, your assessment is incorrect”

Contrary to what 'the caseworker' states "The incidents you are complaining of appear to have occurred in 2002, 2003 and 2007" - it is crystal clear from my above correspondence that the KEY ISSUE is the fact that Kensington police is breaching the DPA 1998 statutory requirements– by (in addition to capturing the data in the first place), refusing to amend / destroy materially false, inaccurate, inadequate, misleading, libellous data it is processing about me on the police systems. Consequently data that is highly prejudicial to my rights and legitimate interests - and therefore unlawful.

Hence, it is abundantly clear from the date of the above events that my complaint is MOST DEFINITELY NOT “OUT OF TIME”. (The 12-month deadline ‘the caseworker, Matthew Johnson ’ is regurgitating from Crispin Lee, DPS (et.al.), comes from Reg.3(2)(a) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004)

Furthermore, the time scale is ONGOING as the processing of UNLAWFUL data about me on the police systems is STILL current and will remain current UNTIL my demands are met – or I reach the age of 100 years old (set by ACPO)

OBVIOUSLY (and in light of my very extensive first-hand experience with the public sector), in order to support my demands, I MUST refer to the events that took place in 2002, 2003 and 2007 - as well as provide supporting evidence (my 101 page bundle of 49 documents (above)). But, of course, Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police, their ACPO supporters and helpers, et.al.and their 'Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky' want to bury them - and, in the process, take revenge for my 'daring' to not be intimidated by them (in spite of my profile), including by their persecution and harassment tactics.

What they don’t like is my overwhelming ‘black on white’ evidence in support of my demands - against them and their 'Most Revered Lord and Master Andrew Ladsky'. In addition, their revenge and retribution plan includes using the unlawful data against me to 'put me out of action' (see above, breach of my Article 8 Right) WHY didn't they destroy the reports as I asked? (Had they done so, NONE of the follow-on events would have taken place).

(NB: Note that #131, pg48 states “There is no cut-off for recording a conduct matter arising from a civil claim i.e. where the events took place some years previously” = forces complainants to issue proceedings. No problem! The State has plenty of money to fight the 'daring' "Great Unwashed / the Oiks": taxpayer money - which includes mine - and it offers the potential to put the 'daring' "Great Unwashed / the Oiks" through more of the 'mincing machine')

My meeting this requirement is abundantly clear from the above documents - added to the fact that I have been forced to engage in this soul-destroying battle since August 2009.

As I have kept on labouring in my correspondence, the numerous contraventions of the DPA 1998 by Kensington police amount to highly material prejudices of my rights and legitimate interests – and are a source of – totally unwarranted – great distress and potentially great damage – given (as detailed in e.g. my 2 Jun 10 s.10 Notice to Mark Heath) (below):

• The processor of the data

• The purpose for which the data is being processed (Very clearly: to use against me e.g. Sergeant Avison on 17 Oct 10: “We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court” )

• The very substantial risk of, yet, further contraventions of my rights, as well as further substantial damage (DPA s.14 (4)(b)) through reprocessing of the data - as happened in 2007 when false, unlawful, sensitive personal data from the 2003 “crime report” was recycled in support of equally false, unlawful accusations.

• The fact that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recommends that the information about an individual is retained “until the individual reaches 100 years of age”. It also means that my personal data will be processed by a multitude of individuals (As I wrote (i) on pg.2 of my 20 Sep 09 reply to the PAO; (ii) pg.5 of my 28 Nov 09 letter to Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson.

• The risk that the data will be stolen - as the police has shown that it cannot ensure security (e.g. in 2006, the theft of a police laptop containing the bank details of 15,000 police officers) (NB: One of many examples of data losses by the public sector)

To this I add the obvious collusion with Andrew Ladsky that has been ongoing since 2002 (more recently repeated in October 2010) conveying the very clear message that, (among others), the police perceives itself to be at his service – to the complete exclusion of mine.

In 'his' 22 February 2010 letter (quoted above), 'the caseworker, Matthew Johnson', states:

If you do provide a sound explanation... I am also considering the dispensation on the grounds of abuse of process (that the complaints procedure does not exist in order for crime reports to be amended...) and 'not reasonably practicable to investigate' (the length of time that has passed since the incidents occurred brings the practicality and value of any investigation into question"

Visitor to the site who is fair minded, reasonable and honest: considering all that is covered above: does it look to you as though my complaint fits the above definition?

Consider also the following:

Furthermore, note also:

Precisely one week after 'his' 22 February 2010 letter (that was withheld) - as I expected, in 'his' near carbon copy 2 March 2010 letter, 'Matthew Johnson, IPCC Casework Manager wrote':

"The IPCC has considered (NB: !!!) the application and your letter of 18th February 2010. Based on the information and evidence provided we (NB: The TRUE "we"? = the police) have agreed that it would not be appropriate to investigate because you have not provided a good reason for the delay between the incident and the making of the complaint and investigating your complaint now would likely cause an injustice" ('He' is quoting from Reg.3(2)(a) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004)

• "Based on the information and evidence provided" The "information and evidence" WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT LISTED ABOVE. Note also the content of my 18 Feb 10 letter to the IPCC) = He did NOT look at ANY of the "information and evidence". If he did, he opted to ignore it.

• "...you have not provided a good reason for the delay..." As I asked under pt 7 of my 18 Feb 10 to DI Lee, DPS (on which I copied the IPCC) " Where, in the Data Protection Act 1998, does it specify a time limit for a data subject to seek – and obtain – an end to the processing of data that is false, unlawful, misleading, scurrilous, libellous, biased, corrupted, incomplete in some very significant aspects – as well as obtain correction of the data to ensure that it is “fair, lawful and accurate”?"
• (See, below, extracts from s.10(1)(3) of the DPA- that "an individual is entitled at any time to ask a data controller to correct / destroy data") = Reg.3(2)(a) IS IRRELEVANT.

• "...investigating your complaint now would likely cause an injustice...". Exerting my rights "causes injustice"!!!!!

(NB: (Aside from, very clearly, not giving a damn about the IPCC's statutory duty and its 'Statutory Guidance' (continuation of extracts, above), as well as having no sense of the ridicule): who, since 2002, HAS - AND CONTINUES - to "cause injustice" to whom? Answer: see above)

(NB: Message to criminals not protected by 'the Brotherhood': Please note! (If you are protected by 'the Brotherhood' then, as evidenced by my case, you can commit crimes right under the nose of the police (point # 3) / with its assistance (points # 1 , # 2 , # 3; October 2010)) So much for the claims by the IPCC Chair, Nick Harding (above), and the claim made in the House of Commons on 10 Dec 09 - below)

"...The IPCC also considers that your complaint is an abuse of the complaints procedure because the misconduct complaints system does not exist in order for changes to be made to old crime reports"

(1) Re. "Abuse of complaints procedure": see above the IPCC Statutory Guidance definition

(2) Re. "old crime reports" - see above the ACPO-imposed retention policy, as well as e.g. Sergeant Avison on 17 Oct 10: “We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court”

'The IPCC Casework Manager' continues - in 'his' 2 March 2010 letter:

"An application to the Information Commissioner might be (NB: "might be" = Warning bell!) a more appropriate way to address this issue,..."

Followed by another 'warning bell': "...if there is any way to address it"

(= We sure as hell are going to have fun with you!)

(Note that e.g.s.30 of the Police Reform Act 2002 has added, to s.9E of the Police Act 1996, 'Removal of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner', "resigning" to the option of "retiring" ("in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness") (and related s.33) = as in other parts of the public sector: NO sacking! )

...e.g. HMCS 'Customer Service' ; Legal Services Ombudsman ; Local Government Ombudsman - as well as the professions e.g. Law Society ; Bar Council ; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, etc - i.e. above visual

The mantra is: Let's have fun; put the complainant back on the treadmill; wear the bastards down; how 'dare' they complain against our tribe? Or, standard option 2: go into 'silent mode' when there is not another treadmill option in the 'toolkit' e.g. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

So much for:

• (1) The claims by the IPCC Chair, Nick Harding, in The Independent article of 13 Feb 10, “Root out corrupt officers, police told” : There has to be a consistent message that this [corruption] is not acceptable” (above)
• (2) The claims in Alan Johnson's 'Policing Pledge', and for the 'Community Service Unit' (above)
• (3) The claim by Sir Paul Stephenson (above), and his comments, also to the media, in 2010, in the context of the case of Mr Munir Hussain who tackled intruders in his home: "People who put themselves in danger to tackle criminals should be celebrated as heroes... they make our society worthwhile"

=ALL in the same class as the claims by e.g. Gordon Brown.

And there clearly has been NO change at the IPCC since 2008 - in spite of the departure of 100+ lawyers :

"Crisis at police watchdog as lawyers resign", (The Guardian, 25 Feb 08) "More than 100 quit over claims of delay and poor decisions by IPCC...In a letter to Nick Hardwick, the IPCC's chairman, the lawyers' leaders expressed "increasing dismay and disillusionment" at what they described as "the consistently poor quality of decision-making at all levels of the IPCC". They said the IPCC's response to their earlier attempts to deal with problems had been "pitifully poor...

... A failure to provide effective oversight for the work of the police investigators who still handle most complaints; a pattern of favouritism towards the police with some complaints being rejected in spite of apparently powerful evidence in their support...they presented Hardwick with a dossier warning that, with few exceptions, "mediocrity appears to flourish unchecked, unmarked and, in many instances, unacknowledged"

In the Guardian's next article, the lawyers are quoted as saying they "had no option. In their resignation letter, they wrote: "The concern for us is that we risk doing a disservice to the complaints system, complainants and our members if we allowed ourselves to remain complicit in a process that is clearly not working".

"The IPCC: a catalogue of delays, rejections and basic failures", (The Guardian, 25 Feb 08) "Murphy, however, discovered that the IPCC had come to this conclusion by referring to a review of the case which had been prepared by the Metropolitan police, which was on the receiving end of the complaint...A Guardian review of dozens of case histories found... failing to order proper inquiries; accepting police evidence without challenge... There have been problems, too, with the IPCC's own investigators, many of whom are former police officers and Customs officers or serving officers on secondment (*)"

(*) Note that under Schedule 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, under point 6 "Staff" - the Commission i.e. IPCC, is allowed to employ members of police forces on a secondment basis (equivalent to putting the wolves in charge of the henhouse).

In the article Nick Harding is quoted as saying that "it was true that casework managers generally were not legally qualified but insisted this was not essential for their work. "We are looking at an accredited training programme for them". Yeah, right in the same way that - considering 'the IPCC decision' in my case - he is "ensuring that corrupt police officers are rooted out"

Contrast that with what the IPCC wrote - the following year - in its 31 Mar 09 report to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee "The IPCC has no formal quality framework in place" (Note that the IPCC was set-up, FIVE years previously, in April 2004 - as stated on pg 3 of the report)

As suggested by the case of a woman who alleged that her ex-husband, a judge, abused a child - to get the IPCC to investigate the reported cover-up by the police, required going to the High Court to get an order for judicial review.

A conclusion to be drawn from this (supported by my experience and that of others) is that the State STILL does NOT provide an effective remedy to individuals who are victims of police misconduct and / or misfeasance - thereby breaching its obligations under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

.The 'IPCC decision' in my case is typical of the decisions 'by' the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (e.g. My Diary 13 Apr 08)...

... - .an assertion that Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, with the IPCC under his Ministry (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us.html) CANNOT challenge - as NO STATISTICS are compiled on the work of the 400 strong IPCC - in spite of the fact that it was set-up in 2004 e.g. excerpts from Hansard, for matters raised in Parliament on 10 December 2009 - Column 565W:

"Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will bring forward proposals to require the Independent Police Complaints Commission to inform his Department of the number of recommendations made by the Commission which have been (a) rejected and (b) implemented by the police force to which they are addressed..."

"Mr Hanson: One of the functions of the police complaints system is to ensure that lessons are learned so that the service the public receives can be improved. The recommendations made by the IPCC are an important element in that improvement process" (NB: Contrast that with the above and the view of the 100+ lawyers who quit the IPCC)...

"...The Home Office is considering with the IPCC, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers (point # 9.2, below) the implementation of a suitable level for monitoring the implementation of IPCC recommendations, both at national and local level. We aim to have arrangements in place by spring 2010.

"The specific information sought by the hon. Member is not collected by the Home Office"

AND - IN SPITE of the fact that, nine months previously, in March 2009, Parliament's Public Accounts Committee "criticised the IPCC for being unable to show if it is working effectively" (point # 9.2, below)

HOW EXTREMELY 'CONVENIENT' FOR THE POLICE THAT NO STATISTICS ARE COMPILED!

Questions about the IPCC have also been raised in the media for some time e.g. in addition to the Guardian (articles above) The Daily Mail article of 5 Oct 08, "Retrain the watchdog" - "The police killing of barrister Mark Saunders continues to raise disturbing questions....The police watchdog seems to devote an increasing amount of its time to obstructing legitimate inquiries and slapping whitewash over controversy. Sir Ian Blair's departure from Scotland Yard offers the chance to conduct a much- needed review of the IPCC's remit and effectiveness"

In light of my experience with the police, added to my experience with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), I laughed when I saw The Times article of 19 Mar 09, "Property fraud: now the Metropolitan Police get in on the act" "Last week the Metropolitan Police announced the launch of its property industry counter-fraud forum — PFAST (Property Forum Acting for Safe Transactions — Property Fraud Forum) in conjunction with a number of partners including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics)" The police "head of the economic and specialist crime command at the Met" is quoted as saying "...we will continue to work with our partners to strengthen the fight against economic crime". Is this going to be the same way they "fight" against the 'Rachman' criminal landlords and their aides, including members of the RICS = HELP THE CRIMINALS?...through 'memorandums of understanding'???

Considering my experience - including at the hands of the police - evidently, 'certain criminals' are 'untouchable' - and those who 'dare' to stand-up to them and the individuals who protect them are pariahs who must be persecuted until they are annihilated. (Home Page-Overview)

As Harriet Sergeant, guest contributor, wrote in her 28 Feb 10 article in The Sunday Times, headed "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered in part by the death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events):

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish...

...Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care"

Those who must also be sacked is the army of individuals who approve of / dictate this treatment of the public. (It would also save a massive amount of taxpayer money).

But, a bit of good news: See below, # 9.2

5.1 In 2010 (in addition to what took place in October 2010), Kensington police continued to wilfully discriminate against me by STILL ignoring my legislative rights - demonstrating its continued belief (evidently endorsed by the Met Commissioner and the IPCC) that it is above the law of the land - this time by failing to reply to my Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 - leading me to decide to issue proceedings. I sent a Pre-action letter on 17 March 2011 stating that if my demands were not met, I would issue proceedings. They were not met. I filed a claim on 19 April 2011.

I sent this 2 June 2010 Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998, and supporting document, to Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police. As per s.10(3) of the DPA, I gave M Heath 21 days to reply. Of course, in continuing breach of my legislative rights (points # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 5), the typically arrogant M Heath totally ignored my correspondence. (Police's belief of 'being above the law of the land' is commented upon by others -see point # 9.2, below). Aside from arrogance, etc. WHY do Heath - et.al. refuse to meet my demands? The obvious answer, confirmed by Sergeant Avison on 17 Oct 10 "We have to keep information in case you commit an offence and end-up in court" - an intention to use them against me at a later stage.

In my s.10 Notice, as well as on three previous occasions (my 13 August 2009 and 20 September 2009 letters, as well as my 28 November 2009 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson), I warned that if my demands were not, I would issue proceedings. I sent a 17 March 2011 pre-action letter, repeating my demands. They were not met. I issued the claim on 19 April 2011... which means that Kensington police et.al. are going to add to the £44m+ costs.

My unexpected 2 June 2010 s.10 Notice triggered retribution (see My Diary 13 Jul 10). I wonder what the 'mafia' is going to do to me now that I have filed the claim...maybe implement the 15 June 09 threat "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live". (There you go boys: helping your game by including another reminder to the 'Great Unwashed' - that should have a "chilling effect")

[ ]

(6) In light of my experience with the police in 2002 and 2003, when the Law Society and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors told me in 2005 that I should "report to the police my alleged criminal offences" by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), and Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) - respectively - I saw no point doing this. Having since: (1) come across the 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the police and the Law Society; (2) seen the 2002, 2003 and 2007 police reports, as a result of my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - and its 'Get lost!' replies to my requests for corrections and deletions - as per my rights and legitimate interests under the Data Protection Act 1998 - my assessment was correct

(When I first wrote this section, I wrote for "committing - allegedly - criminal offences". Although not a lawyer, the evidence that has accumulated since leads me to conclude that I can now remove 'allegedly': see My Diary 22 Nov 08: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS; examples of breach of statutes amounting to criminal offences)

In light of my first-hand experience with the police, when, in reply to my 20 December 2004 complaint against Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), the Law Society stated in its 8 February 2005 reply that my "alleged criminal offences should be reported to the police" - I saw no point doing this. I captured this in my 20 February 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

And I concluded the same thing when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors took a similar line in its 1 March 2005 reply to my 2 February 2005 complaint against Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ).

I was proven right

• They must have been laughing their head off as they wrote this, as they have implicit/explicit 'Memorandums of Understanding' with the police e.g. the Law Society (see below, Association of Chief Police Officers). As evidenced by my experience and that of others, the police (like other State parties) clearly, also has blatantly obvious explicit / implicit 'memorandums of understanding' with 'certain crooks'

• In August 2008, the RICS was of the view that "No doubt, Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you" (RICS # 12) i.e. follow the example of its 'regulator', the RICS which threatened me with defamation proceedings in an attempt to censor me (RICS # 11 , # 12).

This evidence, added to: (1) the standard 'GET LOST!' to ALL my complaints / 'cries for help' ; (2) the continuation of the breach of my statutory rights by the police and by the Home Office (My questions ; my Subject Access Request - point # 5 ; Breach of my Human Rights) ; (3) the confirmation from the police reports (points # 1 , # 2 , # 3) and 'responses' to my SAR - of the blatant collusion with Andrew Ladsky - lead to the very obvious conclusion that, had I filed a complaint with the police against CKFT and MRJ, the only thing that would have happened is that I would have been sent from pillar to post - until I eventually gave up (e.g. my experience with the Court Service in 2004, and in 2008 - WLCC from point # 18 )

Hence, as with the courts (e.g. LSO-Home # C): I am being denied my right of access to justice and redress.

At the end of the day: behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil, 'they' ALL close rank in their network of symbiotic relationships.

Back to list

(7) Additional food for thought ...

... It seems that if Andrew`Ladsky was 11 years old, I and the other residents 'might' have been able to get an ASBO (Anti-social behaviour order) placed on him. The attached Daily Mail article of 6 June 2005 reported such a case

"The order... prohibits... (the child) ...from harassment that would cause alarm."

At the time of launching the website, in 2006, I wrote: "Clearly, there is no point referring this question to the Home Office" - explaining that I copied the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, Home Secretary, on a 17 August 2003 letter to various media (e.g. The Guardian ) - and received a 27 August 2003 reply that my letter had been "forwarded to John Prescott's Office for a suitable reply" = a 'Get lost!'.

It led me to ask whether John Prescott, then Head of Housing, had issued directives to the Home Office on how the police should 'handle' complaints by leaseholders against their landlord?

I stand up to what I stated in the introduction to this site.

Back to list

(8) At the time of launching my website, I asked "I wonder what 'punishment' awaits me for 'daring' to capture my experience with the police". I got the answer!

At the time, I gave the example of the Canadian Lady's experience with the police for "doing the right thing" in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes (My Diary 13 Apr 08)

•  Post the launch there was the so-called 'complaint' against me by Ladsky in 2007 (point # 3)

•  I have also continued to be monitored as though I were a terrorist; My Diary 2010

•  My telephone conversations are monitored, and my mobile phones are being interfered with. And my post, as well as my emails are also being interfered with ('the work' of ACPO et.al.)...

...- in continuing breach of my Human Rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998:

•  Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life"

•  Article 1 of the First Protocol - Protection of property - "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions

In addition to the police TOTALLY OVERLOOKING the evidence on my website in 2007 (point # 3), it is also TOTALLY SILENT on the death threat 'delivered' to me on 15 June 2009 (Home Page-Overview)

Back to list

(8A) More of "the answer" in 2010: Continuation of the breach by the State of (among others) my Human Rights, as Kensington & Chelsea police continues to wilfully discriminate against me, as well as fail to protect me from the acts of private individuals - as, in spite of my SEVEN visits, it has REFUSED to record my complaints of harassment as crime reports, and therefore REFUSED to investigate them. This makes it the FOURTH TIME since 2002 that Kensington police has FAILED to - correctly - record offences against me as harassment and, concurrently, FAILED to take action - Summary - (NB: On EVERY visit I wore my T-shirt, throughout, over my coat)

Detail in My Diary 27 July 10

(9) Additional information on Kensington police - and reports on the police in general

9.1 Waste of Pounds 5-7 million (US$8.8-12.4 million) of taxpayer' money investigating one of its own

The Times , 16 September 2003

"Police tried to destroy me, says cleared officer - A FOUR-YEAR corruption investigation into a top-ranking police officer collapsed yesterday, leaving taxpayers with a bill of up to Pounds 5 million (US$8.8 million) "

"Superintendent Ali Dizaei.was the focus of the biggest investigation of a policeman, involving 100 officers, MI5, the Inland Revenue and police in the United States and Canada . He was trailed, bugged and filmed "

"The officer had been accused of being a drugtaker, a threat to national security and a friend of drug traffickers and money launderers"

"But the marathon inquiry ended in ignominy for the Metropolitan Police when the only remaining actual charge, fiddling Pounds 270 (US$480) mileage expenses, was dropped "

"Dr Dizaei [said] .I find it astonishing and extraordinary that taxpayers' hard-earned funds could be abused in this way." "His defence described the investigation as having "Orwellian proportions".

"One undercover officer joined his gym hoping to entrap him over drugs"

"Police spent Pounds 15,000 (US$26,500) renting a flat in Kensington as part of the officer's cover story"

"Surveillance teams followed Dr Dizaei for 91 days. Police recorded 3,500 telephone calls and monitored 250 hours of conversation . CCTV cameras watched him all over London"

"Police checked his claims to a married man's allowance and even went to his dry cleaner to see if he got a discount "

"The jury cleared him in two hours"

"Charges that Dr Dizaei had fiddled mileage expenses were dropped at the Old Bailey yesterday, two weeks before a second trial was due. The CPS had realised that it could probably claim that only Pounds 270 (US$480) might have been fiddled"

"It also admitted that Dr Dizaei...may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700)"

*****

The Guardian , 20 March 2004

"By the time he was tried last year, all charges had been dropped, bar two: perverting the course of justice (over where his car had been parked) (NB!!!) and misconduct in public office (relating to a pounds 270 (US$480) expenses claim)"

"After an estimated pounds 7 million (US$12.4 million) of public money had been spent on the investigation, he was acquitted on both counts at two Old Bailey trials"

"...the prosecution was forced to admit that, rather than overclaiming pounds 270 (US$480) from the Black Police Association (BPA), Dizaei was owed around pounds 400 (US$700) "

"Dizaei [said] "Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine there were 44 people you worked with who got up every morning for three years , with all the executive power at their disposal, all the money they wanted." The 44 people he refers to are the officers who formed Operation Helios, the team created to investigate him in 1999"

(NB. I know exactly what Superintendent Dizaei felt like, having his life totally invaded. See My Diary , in particular from the summer of 2005)

"At his trial last year, documents disclosed to the defence revealed the lengths to which Helios officers were prepared to go to find something of which they could accuse Dizaei."

"...Fly to south of France to obtain statements from a concert-goer re sale of concert tickets"

"...Trace and take statement from every taxi driver who has given defendant a receipt since 1998."

(NB: Ali Dizaei received a prison sentence in 2010 - as a result of a court action by a member of the public)

And the extent of this is an unknown quantity (in 2006) - See Home Office page - 2003)

Back to list

(9.2) My experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police is symptomatic of the state of the police force: OUT OF CONTROL

While my experience with Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police demonstrates that this police force is OUT OF CONTROL - BECAUSE it is NOT controlled (point # 5, above), it is symptomatic of the general state of the police (in addition to point # 9.1, above):

— A journalist wrote in The Independent of 30 Nov 08 "The police are a law unto themselves" (See also 21 May 09 article below which also raises this issue). Of course the police believes this, as the Commissioner and the IPCC - which includes police officers on secondment - actively endorse its unlawful conduct.

— In February 2009, Reform (on its website, http://www.reform.co.uk, it describes itself as "...a non-party think tank whose mission is to set-out a better way to deliver public services...") published a report 'A New Force', February 2009, in which it states:

"The police in England and Wales are the most expensive in the developed world, but fail to deliver" (My thoughts: Cost might due to the spying equipment? (e.g. hacking into people's computers), and "failure to deliver" might be due to spending time on activities outside its mandate? e.g. as I believe, in my case)

"The 43 forces are run as fiefdoms by their Chief Constables"

"ACPO (1) ...a self-perpetuating oligarchy - is the key influence on police forces, in a textbook example of producer capture. It will gain more power over appointments in the new Policing and Crime Bill"

(1) ACPO = Association of Chief Police Officers - Unbelievably, an 'independent' company run by chief police officers, with the power, as National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism (NCDE), to run undercover spy operations, control the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, the largest of ACPO's 'domestic extremism units', etc. (see My Diary 13 Apr 08, surveillance Britain, for detail on ACPO's activities) (It was stripped of these functions in January 2011 - when MPs 'miraculously' recovered from their collective amnesia) (My Diary 2011 - Introduction) Examples of ACPO's involvement in police conduct and complaints by the public: (1) It has issued a Hate Crime Manual "for the recording of a hate incident or crime", on which the "IPCC has mirrored its definition of a hate crime" (ISG-B75, pg 186) (NB: Evidently, its Kensington police 'mates' are exempt from compliance - above) (2) It has a "protocol with the IPCC in relation to referrals of serious corruption" (ISG-#213, pg65) (NB: Another requirement which ACPO (like the IPCC), evidently perceives as excluding its Kensington police mates (above)...due to 'another part' of an implicit ‘Memorandum of Understanding’?? (see below) (3) It can also get involved in complaints "made about the head of a professional standards department" (ISG-#113, pg45) (above) (NB: As it has done in my case??? - considering the 'handling' of my complaint, including by the IPCC...while ALL consulted the implicit 'Memorandum of Understanding???) ACPO has an absolutely outrageous (but not surprising) 'Memorandum of Understanding' with the Law Society (on the Victims Unite website - at http://victims-unite.net/2010/08/28/on-the-mou-between-the-law-society-and-the-association-of-chief-police-officers/ ) - the objectives of which include: "to enable both parties to make a considered decision as to what further action may be taken through disciplinary, regulatory or criminal procedures, and what further co-operative action may be required or desirable...The parties can then consider the proper course of action having regard to their respective priorities" (NB: Jack Straw confirmed the existence of this MoU to an MP - see letter of March 2010) (NB: This endorses my decision to NOT follow the Law Society (and RICS) 'recommendation' that "[I] need to report [my] alleged criminal offences to the police". As evidenced by my experience and that of others, the police (like other State parties) clearly, has also blatantly obvious explicit / implicit 'memorandums of understanding' with 'certain crooks') Mail on Sunday, 15 Feb 09, article headed "How the body responsible for Britain's policing policy has turned itself into an £18m -a-year business charging the public £70 for a 60p criminal records check" "Until now, ACPO's central role in policing has not been questioned as it is seen as an essential, if sometimes controversial, public body writing the rules of police operations...But the organisation is not a public body...It is a private company...paid millions of pounds a year by the taxpayer to effectively run the nation's police forces..." From the Comment section of the same issue of the Mail on Sunday : "Parliament should urgently investigate this strange, unaccountable body and bring it under control" Daily Mail, 21 Feb 10, "Millions of anti-terror cash spent on luxury London flats for police chiefs" "The £33m funding is supposed to be used to beef up regional police forces' anti-terrorism response... Instead, ACPO's Terrorism & Allied Matters (TAM) committee, headed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, has used millions of pounds from the budget to buy flats... Privately Yates is understood to be horrified [by this]...One senior police source said "‘No politician will ever say this but the terrorism budget is over-stuffed. Every year they have a huge under-spend which they lavish on things that are not needed. These flats were bought out of this under-spend" QUESTIONS: Is this 'surplus' also spent on: (1) UNLAWFUL covert surveillance - and harassment - (including overseas), of 'people like me' who 'dare' stand-up to their mates in the police, and to their organised crime 'friends' - with whom they have blatantly obvious explicit / implicit 'Memorandums of Understanding'? (2) Monitoring and interfering with their phone, post, emails and computer? (3) Installing bugging devices in their flat? (4) Use of helicopters to track them down and harass them? In light of its profile and powers, my instincts lead me to the conclusion that ACPO IS BEHIND THESE EVENTS. I would like to know: What is the size of the 'surplus' allocated to 'get me' v. e.g. the £5-7 million budget allocated to get Dizaei's 'scalp'?

The February 2009, Reform report also states:

"...Respect for the force - The police in England and Wales are relatively free of corruption in comparison with other countries" (2)

"...measured by the British Crime Survey... the public's confidence in the police is falling dramatically: 92% in 1982 down to 47% in 2004".

(2) A footnote at the bottom of the page states that it draws on a reference dated 2003. This suggests that the source data will be from 2002 and possibly older. Hence, the assertion appears to be based on data that is at least seven years out of date). (In addition to my experience with the police, some of the below articles, as well as prior media reports (My Diary 2 Aug 06) also report on police corruption)

— In its 31 Mar 09 issue, the Daily Mail reports "Complaints against police rise 300% in three years"- quoting from a report released by the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

(NB: In the context of complaints against the police, note that e.g. Northumbria police nominated itself for an award from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (and won!) - for its 'performance' following one of its officers killing a 16 year old girl, due to his failure to use the car's flashing light or siren, as he was going at high speed ('Sick' police force win PR award for the way they handled death of schoolgirl... killed by patrol car", The Daily Mail, 24 Mar 10))

In the same 31 Mar 09 article by the Daily Mail, Jane Furniss, chief executive of the IPCC is quoted as saying to MPs "The British Crime Survey suggests that something like 300,000 people who have had contact with the police describe themselves as very annoyed following it, so something like ten times the number who actually make a complaint".

The article also states "The Parliament's Public Accounts Committee also criticised the IPCC for being unable to show if it is working effectively" Of note: nine months later: and the Home Office is STILL unable to answer this question (point # 5 - which also contains my answer to the question)

I don't know whether this British Crime Survey report has the same issue date as that quoted from by Reform, that "public confidence is down to 47% in 2004". It 'seems' unlikely. Whatever the date, I am certainly one of the people who would bring the average down even further by stating 'Absolutely no confidence and no trust whatsoever in the police" View triggered by my first-hand experience in 2002 e.g. my 4 August 2002 reply to Sir Toby Harris (point # 1, above), and that of my fellow leaseholders (point # 4). And these feelings have since been reinforced in steel and concrete as a result of my subsequent first-hand experience with the police (points # 2 , # 3 , # 4 , # 5)

— "Police fail to investigate one third of crimes" (The Sunday Telegraph, 22 Nov 09) "Police failed to investigate more than 1.5 million reported crimes last year. The offences included sex attacks, robberies, fraud, violent crimes and drug offences, as well as large numbers of burglaries and thefts"

— Also in the 13 Feb 10 article, in The Independent, "Root out corrupt officers, police told", Nick Hardwick, Chair of the IPCC, said to be aware "of officers using the police computer system to pass information to criminal associates" - and quotes an example. (NB: His comments about cleaning the police of corruption are TOTALLY meaningless - see point # 5, my experience with the IPCC)

— "Police misconduct costs forces £44m", The Times 3 Dec 2007 (NB: It should say 'Cost the taxpayer') "The bulk was paid out for wrongful arrests, assaults, malicious prosecutions and abuses of human rights... The figures show that between 2002 and 2007 the 55 police forces received more than 31,000 claims... The survey also exposed defects in the way in which forces keep their records. More than half did not keep accessible records of claims, complaints or court cases... (NB: I know about that: 2002 and 2003). In all, 31,829 claims were lodged over five years, resulting in 1,825 court actions. But only 467, or 24 per cent, of those claims reached court. Most were settled or paid of"

— In an article in The Times, 21 May 09, headed "