Email this site to a contact

 

"If you are a landlord, we’ll help you intimidate and persecute your leaseholders - so that you can achieve your financial objectives" (My interpretation of the position of Kensington & Chelsea police - and beyond)

kensington & chelsea Police - Home

 

Introduction

The main station is Kensington Police Station, 72-74 Earls Court Road, London W8 6EQ.

(SEE BELOW MY QUESTIONS , BREACH OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS , SECTIONS LIST)

(NB: Kensington & Chelsea police is covered in, among others:

(SEE BELOW FOR SECTIONS)

In reading the events captured on this page, consider Schedule 4 of the Police Act 1996 - as amended under Part 6, section 83 of the Police Reform Act 2002 - Attestation of constables - Form of Declaration:

"I.........of.........do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law"

In reading this page, consider also e.g. the offences that have led to 40 police staff being sacked by Yorkshire and Humberside police.

 

I have been at the 'receiving end' of the 'Kensington & Chelsea police treatment' on three occasions: in 2002 ; 2003 and 2007.

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 Chair of the Metropolitan Police, resulting in the typical outcome: closing of rank - see 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 Kensington & 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 tribunal. 'Mysteriously', in this instance, Kensington & Chelsea police no longer had any concern about the "need for evidence", nor 'judicious' use of resources - see section 2 below

Clearly having a 'very special relationship' with Kensington & Chelsea police, 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’ at Kensington & Chelsea police for assistance.

Falling over backwards to help him, TDC Simon J Dowling of the 'Community Safety Unit' impersonated a police officer (my conclusion) and FALSELY implied to my Host that I had committed "a crime". 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 - KENSINGTON POLICE DID NOT CONTACT ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME - AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TOTALLY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS - see section 3

The conduct of Kensington & Chelsea police, 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. See also My Diary 2010) (As I keep repeating throughout this website: NO, I AM NOT A CRIMINAL, I AM THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME) - 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 reports filed by the police on its system, at the time (point # 5, below) . ALL three confirm my assessment of Kensington & Chelsea 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)

The 'get lost / don't care' 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 (point # 5.1)

 

The overall word I have to sum-up events with Kensington & Chelsea police - in relation to myself - the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - in 2002, 2003 and 2007, and other Residents at Jefferson House (1) is:

C O R R U P T I O N (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')

...as well as: complicity (2), duplicity (2), misrepresentations (2), cover-up (2) and protection of, and assistance to a criminal

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

As to the explanation? My guess: Freemasons / Jewish network...and / or?

As to what the Home Office, which comprises the police and the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, can say for its ILLEGAL 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 13 Apr 08 ; 22 Apr 08+)

In addition to the questions contained in this page - I ALSO ASK:

(1) - WHAT LED DC 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 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 Neil Watson PC 206BS, of Chelsea police, to conclude that he could commit an offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - by sending me his threatening letter of 27 January 2003? (point # 2)

(4) - WHAT LED Neil Watson PC 206BS, of Chelsea police, 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)

(5) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, of Kensington's 'Community Safety Unit', to conclude that he could commit offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - by sending his malicious, libellous and scurrilous 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 email to my website Host? (point # 3)

(6) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, of Kensington's 'Community Safety Unit', to conclude that he could commit offences against me under the Defamation Act 1996 - by sending his malicious, libellous and scurrilous 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 email to my website Host? (point # 3)

(7) - 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 police officer (my conclusion)? (point # 3)

(8) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling, of Kensington's 'Community Safety Unit', 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)

(9) - WHAT LED TDC Simon J Dowling - ET.AL at Kensington police - to conclude that they could overlook - ALL the reported 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 ; the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994. Etc.? (points # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 5)

(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 Kensington & Chelsea police is exempt from compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 - by repeatedly contravening FIVE of the DPA Principles in the "crime reports" of which I am the Data Subject - and by refusing to make amendments? (point # 5)

(11) WHAT LED Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commnander - to conclude that the named officers are exempt from compliance with the Police Act - 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 # 5)

(12) 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)

(13) - WHAT LED Alan Johnson, the then Home Office Minister, to conclude that his other department, the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, can approve of Kensington & Chelsea 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? (point # 5)

 

In light of events, I ALSO ASK:

WHAT LED Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Borough Commander, DI Paul Webster, DC DR Adams, DC SP Crockett, Sir Toby Harris (point # 1), Neil Watson PC206BS (point # 2), TDC Simon J Dowling (point # 3), Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley, Professional Standards, Kensington police, Detective Inspector Crispin Lee, Directorate of Professional Standards, the police Public Access Office, and the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (point # 5) - and hence the then Home Secretary, heading ALL these departments...

... – to conclude that they were exempt from compliance with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 “to be treated fairly and with dignity [by the police] and without prejudice” (Equality and Human Rights Commission (government website http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain))...

“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…

UK law includes a range of human rights which protect you from poor treatment and prejudice, and which require you to have equal and fair treatment from public authorities”

… in particular (varying with the individuals concerned): Article 3 “Right to not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment” ; Article 7 "Right to 'No punishment without law" ; Article 8 "Right to respect for private life" ; Article 10 "Right to 'Freedom of expression'" ; Article 14 “Right to not be discriminated against” ; Article 17 "Prohibition of abuse of right"?...

...as further evidenced by the 'responses' to my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request (point # 5), as well as the fact that, in spite of widespread knowledge by the police - up to the highest level: Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner - that I received a death threat on 15 June 2009, NOBODY from the police has contacted me. To this is added events with my mobile phones and my post. (See also Home page-Overview)

Sections

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

I filed a 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police (point # 5, below), leading to my obtaining the police report CR:5604102/02 in relation to this complaint. I replied on 13 August 2009, supported by a 101 page bundle of 49 documents, demanding changes to the report - as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, to seek - and obtain - an end to the processing of data “likely to cause damage or distress”, as well as obtain correction of data to ensure that it is “fair, lawful and accurate”.

Following a 25 August 2009 reply that amounts to a 'get lost', I replied on 20 September 2009 insisting on my rights (for subsequent events, see point # 5, below)

Key points of note:

(1) Page 13 – Classification (of offence) ‘Method’, CR:5604102/02 report - FALSELY states that I identified the perpetrator of the harassment as "unknown" when, in fact, I identified Andrew Ladsky.

It defines this "unknown" person as my "neighbour". In the other two reports (for the 2003 so-called 'complaint: CR:5602261/03 (point # 2, below), and for the 2007 so-called 'complaint': CR:5605839/07 (point # 3, below)), Andrew Ladsky is also described as my "neighbour"..

(In my 20 September 2009 letter (pg 21) I replied "K&C police KNOWS that Ladsky is the landlord, but prefers to hide this fact - thereby giving him scope to play the 'poor innocent victim', as well as making the captured 'story' and trumped-up accusations (stemming from revenge and abuse of power) an 'easier sale' to those not familiar with the situation - and thereby build the case against me"

(1A) 'Page 2 - General Classification - DV/Hate Crime - is this a Hate Crime?' and 'Page 6 - Vulnerable/ intimidated victim - have been left blank. It IS a "Hate Crime": "Race" and, "Targeted because of vulnerability" as: (1) it stems from racism because I am partly of German descent; (2) The purpose of the 20 anonymous phone calls was to intimidate me because I was challenging Ladsky's intended scam.

(1B) 'Page 13 - Main classifcation Description' only states "SUBSTANT/Improper use of public telecommunication system". K&C police has FAILED to state: Protection from Harasssment Act 1997 as the repeated harassment amounts to offences under this Act.

(2) 'My' landline number was captured - instead of capturing the Reach Europe landline number from which some calls were made to my phone (Pages 19 and 20 – '22/02/2002 – 14h31 – DC SP Crockett', CR:5604102/02 report)

One month later, the Reach Europe number was FALSELY described as "a BT cellnet number" (Page 22 – '20/03/2002 – 9h34 – DC SP Crockett', CR:5604102/02 report)

A further eight days later, DC Adams FALSELY recorded that he still needed to determine the accuracy of the information he had been provided by BT (Page 24 – '28/03/2002 – 12h44 - DC Adams', CR:5604102/02 report) v. what he had told me on that day: that (1) he had “contacted Reach Europe” ; (2) that there was “no subscriber for the number”; that “BT is wrong. Something must have gone wrong with their system” ; (3) “We’ll contact BT again but, if they got the wrong number, we won’t contact you again” (I captured this conversation on page 4 of my 5 May 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, and on page 2 of my 2 April 2002 letter to DI Paul Webster)

As to "...if they got the wrong number, we won’t contact you again” = we have NO INTENTION of contacting you again. And indeed, in his entry for 27 March 2002 – 22h52, page 23 of the CR:5604102/02 report states “This matter is complete”

(3) Further evidence of BLIND DETERMINATION TO PROTECT LADSKY:

- (1) DC Adams “…in this case there was absolutely no evidence to link – 104 – (i.e. Ladsky) with this matter” (Page 24 - '26/03/2002 – 13h42 – DC Adams', CR:5604102/02 report)

(In my 20 September 2009 letter (pg 23), I wrote "This false statement impacts negatively on me, by falsely portraying me as an individual who makes unfounded accusations"

- (2) DC Adams "...[Ladsky] has not been the subject in any Cris reports…” (Page 24 - '26/03/2002 – 13h42 – DC Adams', CR:5604102/02 report) (NB: At least another FOUR other residents have complained against him to K&C police - point # 4, below) (NB: This is what DI Paul Webster wrote in his 23 April 2002 letter to me (hence one month later) in reply to mine of 2 April 2002 - a reply he, of course, FAILED to capture)

(In my 13 August 2009 letter (pg 13) I wrote “K&C police claims to have no “crime report” against Ladsky - because it evidently ensures that none are recorded.... as harassment is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – it follows that Kensington & Chelsea police has not only failed to record these acts by Andrew Ladsky – it has also failed to take action”...

... while in my 20 September 2009 letter (pg 22), I wrote "By hiding this evidence, the consequential impact on me of the implication that Ladsky has ‘not committed any criminal offences’ is that it contributes to forming a negative perception of me by undermining my credibility...")

- (3) DC Adams eventually telling me that "all the anonymous phone calls were made by Mrs [X]" - and capturing this in the CR:5604102/02 report, on page 30; 25/05/2002 – 10h52 – DC Adams - v. the entry by DC Adams on page 29, 22/05/2002 – 19h39: “There is no way of tracing which telephone was used to make the three calls between 18h23 and 18h27 on 19/2/2” (NB: If the phone "cannot be traced" then, nor can the caller. It's just a continuation of the cover-up) (In my 31 May 2002 email to Sir Harris, I questioned DC Adams's assertion that "the anonymous phone calls from the landline number were made from the Carlton Tower hotel")

(4) DC Adams FAILED TO RECORD the fabricated story he told me on 20 March 2002, that the resident alleged to have made the anonymous calls to me "had her phone stolen in November 2001" and that it had "mysteriously reappeared at her door, three months later"

(5) DC Crockett FAILED TO RECORD that, on 20 March 2002, he told me that the calls from the landline number "came from your phone. Something must have gone wrong with your BT voicemail"

(6) DC Adams FAILED TO RECORD when the so-called 'admission' by the resident, alleged to have made the anonymous phone calls to me, 'apparently' took place.

(7) DC Adams FAILED TO RECORD the fact that, on 26 March 2002, at 12h50, I sent him a fax reporting the conversation I had with BT - because it undermines his fabrications

(8) DC Adams FAILED TO RECORD the fact in my 15h11, 25 March 2002 fax, I related the main points he claimed the resident alleged to have made the calls had told him - asking him to confirm my understanding. And of course, he also FAILED to record the fact that he never replied.

(9) DC Adams FAILED TO RECORD the fact that, on 27 March 2002: (1) I phoned him to determine whether he had received my faxes of 25 and 26 March; (2) he complained “So, we are going to have to throw resources at this for just two phone calls!”; (3) had said to me “You won’t be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky” To this I replied: “How do you know that? Are you talking to him?” (conversation captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to DI Paul Webster).

(In my 20 September 2009 letter, (pg 27) I wrote "Failure to process this data has an impact on me as, by not stating that I was put under duress by DC Adams, as well as, in effect, told (what was obvious to me) that K&C police was ‘in Andrew Ladsky’s camp’, it can be construed that I backed down on my complaint – thereby undermining my credibility")

(10) DI Webster and DC Adams took steps to ensure that MY COMPLAINTS WERE NOT RECORDED in the report:

  • 'Page 22 - 19/03/2002 - 15h27 - DI PA Webster' wrote "I have received a registered letter from Ms Rawé regarding the progress of this investigation". The date of my letter is 13 March 2002. It is a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. The letter was not addressed to him. He got hold of it because I copied DC Adams and DC Crockett on the letter.
  • 'Page 26 - 08/04/2002 - 14h32 - DC DR Adams': All - bar one point - in my 2 April 2002 letter to DI Webster in which I relate comprehensive detail of my dealings with DC Adams from 20 March to 27 March 2002 - including quoting him verbatim - has NOT BEEN CAPTURED. (And I already communicated the captured point before)
  • DI Webster FAILED to capture his 23 April 2002 'reply' to my 2 April 2002 letter. One month later, on 'Page 30 - 25/05/2002 - 10h52 - DC DR Adams', DC Adams FALSELY wrote that he told me that "DI Webster would be writing to her to cover all the points made in her previous letter". Then, they closed the report.
  • My 5 May 2002 'cry for help' to Sir Toby Harris asking for "an independent investigation of events with Kensington & Chelsea police" has NOT BEEN CAPTURED. As can be seen from his 11 July 2002 reply, Sir Harris DID contact K&C police. Of course, likewise, this has NOT BEEN RECORDED.

(In my 20 September 2009 letter, (pg 27) I wrote "Failure to record my correspondence to Sir Toby Harris is evidently intended to cover-up the fact that I was not satisfied with K&C police’s ‘handling’ of my complaint. Not revealing this correspondence undermines my credibility")

(See point # 5, below, for the outrageous excuses by Acting Chief Inspector, Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards', K&C police, for REFUSING to amend this (and the other two reports)

Back to list

30 January 2002 - At c. 23h00 when I came back from work, Andrew Ladsky forced me into the building by coming within centimeters of me as I was at the front door. I asked him who he was (I had never seen him before), whether he was living in the block.   He replied:   "None of your business"

1 February 2002 - (At the time I had just replied to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House, that the planned survey for the block dealt with items connected with the building of an extra floor rather than with redecoration). (I WAS RIGHT! see e.g. Major works)  

At 22h45 somebody presses my door bell and immediately walks into the building (i.e. has the key to the front door). The lift is activated for a long time i.e. going up several floors. Andrew Ladsky was living on the 5th floor at the time.  

I conclude that it is him, given the encounter on 30 January 2002, as well as the history of harassment and intimidation of other residents, including in particular of the person who was running our residents association the minute she interfered with his plans. (See also Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000 , as well as harassment of other residents: Elderly Resident , Other Residents - and of Nucleus, local Citizens Advice Bureau)

15 February 2002 - At 23h45 a small hard object is thrown at my windows. It is immediately followed by somebody coming into the building. Yet again, the lift is activated for a long time. Again, I conclude that it must be Ladsky.

17 February 2002 - I received anonymous phone calls at home, in succession, from 21h50.  

British Telecom (BT) told me that 13 calls were made that evening. (I switched the bell off after 8-9 calls in succession). (Note: Although I did not have a trace on my phone on 17 February, BT was nonetheless able to trace the calls).

19 February 2002 - Another seven anonymous phone calls were made to my home phone. All were traced by BT. Hence, by then, a total of 20 anonymous phone calls had been made to my phone.

(NB: In late February / early March 2002, I also received anonymous phone calls at work – which I knew were from Ladsky / one of his accomplices as the first call had led the switchboard to contact me to say that somebody was asking for Noëlle K-Dit-Rawé - which is the name I use in relation to the flat). (For work I only used Noëlle Rawé).

18 February 2002 - In the evening, I went to Chelsea police, Lucan Street, to report the calls, as well as pressing of my door bell and object thrown at my windows - and identified Andrew Ladsky as the perpetrator of this harassment (acts which, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, are punishable by imprisonment).

On 19 / 20 February 2002, I was told by DC Adams that the form I had completed at the station was lost. Considering the very obvious reluctance to record my complaint, it did not surprise me to hear this. I therefore completed another form and was given a crime report number BS 560 4102/02C.

According to page 1 of the 11 July 2002 letter from Sir Toby Harris, the "...complaint was recorded... under the Malicious Communications Act"

During my conversation with DC Adams, when I reiterated my claim that the perpetrator was Andrew Ladsky, his immediate response was “nobody else has complained about him!” (Making me feel as though I were a liar). When I said that the resident of flat [x] had complained about him, his split second reply was “the 71 year old man!”. (see key point # 3, above)

What shocked was the implication that the police dismissed a complaint made by a man of this age, and the fact that DC Adams had lied to me. It is obvious that DC Adams knew / had heard of Ladsky – and he gave it away by ‘immediately’ saying that “nobody has ever complained about him”

After a delay caused by the police, British Telecom supplied the numbers to the police on 22 February 2002.

On phoning DC Adams, the following week, he told me that the calls had been made from two numbers: a mobile phone and a landline. He said that in the case of the landline number, what was “very odd” was that there was “no subscriber”. I checked with BT who told me that the reason it did not provide the name of a subscriber was because the phone was registered with another telephone service supplier – and that it had specified the name of the provider: ‘Reach Europe’. DC Adams had withheld this information from me making it sound as though it would be impossible to determine the name of the subscriber (which is ridiculous as somebody had to be paying for the calls). (From report: And his mate, DC SP Crockett, made sure that the Reach Europe number was not captured on the police system - see key point # 2, above)

In reply to my question as to how long it would take to obtain the name of the owner of the telephones, he said “it could take several weeks”

26 February 2002 - When I came back from work, (as he had done on two previous occasions), Andrew Ladsky seemed to jump out of nowhere behind me as I was entering the building. He pushed me aside to pass by me in the corridor. When I commented on his behaviour, he told me to “get lost”

As, by 11 March 2002 the police told me that it had not heard from the phone service providers, I said that I would file a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority – which I did on 13 March 2002 – and copied DC Adams, as well as DC Crockett, with whom I had also been dealing when DC Adams was not available.

On 20 March 2002, DC Adams phoned me to say that the calls made from a mobile number were from a phone that belonged to Resident K who then lived in flat 33, apparently, below that of Andrew Ladsky. I noted with great interest how the “it could take several weeks to get the name of the subscribers” had suddenly been reduced – evidently, as a result of my complaint.

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.

 When I asked about the subscriber for the calls made from a landline, DC Adams told me “They came from your own phone”. I could not believe the stupidity of the reply, and asked “Are you telling me that I am making anonymous phone calls to myself?”

DC Adams asked whether I used BT voicemail. To my replying that I did, he said “Well something must have gone wrong with it. It’s been calling your number by mistake”. (see key point # 5, above)

It was blatantly obvious that DC Adams was going out of his way to not reveal the subscriber of the landline number – which I concluded was Ladsky. (Confirmed by the report, as DC Adams's mate, DC SP Crockett, made sure that the Reach Europe number was NOT captured on the police system - see key point # 2, above)

DC Adams asked me “Will you prosecute?” to which I replied that I would get back to him.

DC Adams phoned me at 10h45 on 25 March 2002, and said, in an extremely aggressive, angry tone “You said you would phone back. Are you going to prosecute?” To my replying that I did not have enough information to make this decision, he said that I had – to which I replied “No, I want to know who, what, when, where, how? I cannot take a decision without having the facts. For all I know, Mrs [x] is innocent”.

DC Adams then said “We take the decision whether or not to prosecute”, to which I replied “Why ask me if I want to prosecute if the decision is not mine to take in the first place?”

It led him to say “If we find out that she has done it, will you be prepared to come and make a statement at the station?”. I replied “Absolutely!” He then asked “Are you prepared to come to court?” – to which I also replied “Absolutely!”

My replies spurred on the most ‘amazing’ development as, three-and-half hours later, i.e. on 25 March 2002, at 14h10, DC Adams phoned me back. ‘Amazingly’, in the space of these three-and-half hours, DC Adams had managed to contact Resident K and interview her. DC Adams said “She admits to having made the anonymous phone calls. She said that her phone mysteriously reappeared at her door. I told her we were not buying that story. She said she does not know why she has done it. I really probed her, asked her whether you had upset her in any way. She said no. She is very sorry she has done this. She said that Andrew Ladsky has been harassing her” (Everything 'stunk of cover-up) (see key point # 6, above)

To this I replied “So, there are five people now who have complained to the police about Andrew Ladsky!” – and I listed them. DC Adams replied “We are talking about anonymous phone calls here”. To which my response was “Why are you so reticent when I mention Andrew Ladsky’s name?” In fact, I should have said ‘why do you go on the defensive when I mention Andrew Ladsky?’

It was blatantly obvious that DC Adams was protecting Andrew Ladsky – and so were others with whom I had been in contact at Kensington & Chelsea police – and it continued to be blatantly obvious.

Knowing the harassment, intimidation, bullying and other scare tactics suffered by other residents at the hands of Ladsky / his aides (Head of Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents), I thought that Resident K might have been made to act under duress – and the concocted story by DC Adams added to this impression. Hence, I told DC Adams that I agreed with his suggestion of “issuing her with a formal warning and that should she do this again, you would prosecute her”.

(Subsequent events re. Resident K: (1) on the - FRAUDULENT - 29 November 2002 claim filed in West London County Court, the Particulars of claim show that the ‘service charge’ demand for her flat, flat 33, was the second highest, at £62,000 (US$109,300) (it can also be seen on MRJ's "Major works apportionment" issued in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim) ; (2) in 2003, the Land Registry record for flat 33 had “a caution” filed against the flat “on 10 October 2003 in favour of Steel Services”). (NOTE In August 2007 this resident was still in the block - which I find most extraordinary - see the note at the beginning of the section on Ex(?) Resident K )

(NB: Please note that the 29 November 2002 claim, like the second 27 February 2007 claim, also filed against me in West London County Court, on this occasion by Portner and Jaskel - are BOTH FRAUDULENT - as explained throughout this site e.g. London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Mr Brian Gale ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT) ; Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) ; Pridie Brewster # 18 ; Stan Gallagher ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton - snapshot in My Diary 22 Nov 08: the undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

In relation to the first claim, not surprisingly, finding themselves with the equivalent of having 'a gun held to their head' (see CKFT # 5 , # 6.1 and # 6.2 ) - and West London County Court opting to ignore the fact that the court action was an 'abuse of process of court' as it continued with the action against the leaseholders (I informed the courts about the LVT action a total of 8 TIMES) - including issuing judgement/s - led to 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ending-up paying the FULL amount of the 'service charge', and a further 16 flats had also paid the full amount by the end of 2003 - amounting to £502,000 (CKFT # 2 , # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). In fact, because of breach of consultation procedures, the contribution for EACH flat should have been CAPPED at £250 - see detail in My Diary 6 May 08. (Events are contained in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement).

Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the fraud: being persecuted as though I am the criminal - instead of what I am: THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME (see also: home introduction ; My Dairy 15 May 08) - I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately' in relation to my fellow leaseholders)

On the same day i.e. 25 March 2002 I sent a fax to DC Adams summarizing what he had told me, and requesting that he sends me confirmation. Of course, he never did. (see key point # 8, above)

On 26 March 2002, I phoned BT to ask for confirmation of what I had been told by DC Adams i.e. “something must have gone wrong with it. It’s been calling your number by mistake”. BT totally refuted this, reiterating that the calls had been made from a landline provided by a telephone service provider other than BT. The BT person suggested I give BT’s number to the police so that it could explain it to the police. Following this conversation, I sent a fax to DC Adams. (see key point # 7, above)

On 27 March 2002, I phoned DC Adams to ask him whether he had received my two faxes. Reply “Only the first one” i.e. the 25 March 2002 fax in which I asked him to confirm what Resident K had said ‘during the interview’.

When I told him what my second fax contained (which, of course, he had received), his reply was “So, we are going to have to throw resources at this for just two phone calls!” (see key point # 9, above)

 

DC 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 spite of saying that, DC Adams was evidently so intent on not revealing the name of the subscriber for the landline, that he phoned me the following day to say “We’ve contacted Reach Europe. There isn’t a subscriber for the number. BT is wrong. Something has gone wrong with their system. We’ll contact BT again but, if they got the wrong number, we won’t contact you again”.

BT has traced some calls – to MY phone - from a number supplied by Reach Europe. Therefore, of course there must a subscriber for this number. Somebody must be paying for the calls made from that phone. (see key points # 2 , # 3)

My translation of the message from DC Adams: ‘Get lost! You won’t get evidence from us that incriminates Andrew Ladsky’.

All the above details, starting from 20 March 2002, are captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to Paul Webster, Detective Inspector, Kensington Police station. Clearly, I would not have written this to him (*) if it were not true. Note also that DC Adams NEVER came back to me to challenge what I wrote in the letter (See also the Document library for other correspondence) (*) Showing my ignorance, at the time, I thought that DI Webster was the Head of K&C police)

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 was definitely "correct" - as evidenced by the following - which predates DI Webster's letter:

•  An identical letter, dated 11 October 2001, sent by Ayesha Salim Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B who had reported Andrew Ladsky to K&C police:

"We are informed that on the morning of Thursday 11 October 2001, you reported our client to the police alleging that he had illegally entered flat [x] and flat [x] Jefferson House.

Our client was visited by Mr D Malam from the Chelsea Police Station" .

The next sentence reads:

"The police have investigated the allegation and have determined that it was completely unfounded" (NB: What a surprise!)

•  DC Adams telling me, on 25 March 2002, that Resident K (who allegedly made the anonymous phone calls to me) had told him that Ladsky had been harassing her (as I captured on the second page of my 2 April 2002 letter to DI Paul Webster). (As previously stated: very clearly, I would not have written this if it were not true).

•  DC Adams telling me, on 19 / 20 February 2002, that "nobody else has complained about him" (i.e. Andrew Ladsky) (NB: Proving that he had heard of Ladsky!). When I replied "how about the man in flat [x]?", his split second reply was: "the 71 year old man". This is captured in my 13 March 2002 letter to the Police Complaints Authority - on which I copied DC Adams. (Likewise, I would not have written this if it were not true. Note also that DC Adams NEVER challenged me on this).

•  The fact that the person who headed our Residents Association had reported Andrew Ladsky to the same police station in 2001 / 2002. While I have absolutely no doubt that she did it, this was confirmed in an email to me from another leaseholder, dated 18 April 2002  

"Chelsea Police advised her off the record to fold her tent and go - which she did, can't blame anyone for that" .  

This leaseholder then continues:

"Her experience was horrendous, I was there on two occasions on Jan & Feb last year with this harassment going on"

In his 23 April 2002 letter, DI Webster also wrote, among other, “DC Adams will contact you when we receive a result [in relation to the landline subscriber]…I have been informed they have a major backlog in the system”. My translation: confirmation of ‘we’ll never give you the evidence’.

And this was also evident from this comment “The main (NB!!!) caller to your telephone has been identified as Mrs [x]. Should you have any specific criminal investigation about Mr Ladsky contact DC Adams and they will be investigated”. In light of my experience by then, it was blatantly obvious that it would - continue - to be a complete waste of time.

Back to list

The Metropolitan Police Authority: another government department with a very unique interpretation of its legal mandate

In light of Kensington & Chelsea police's attitude, on 5 May 2002, I escalated my complaint to Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority requesting an independent review of the investigation conducted by Kensington & Chelsea police.

What prompted me to do this was the department's remit on its website:

"...ensure that London has a police force that is responsive to the needs of its community"

In this letter, I provided comprehensive details of events, and identified Andrew Ladsky as the perpetrator of the harassment and intimidation I was suffering.

As my letter had not been acknowledged, I sent an email on 31 May 2002 addressed to the Chair - in which I related more recent events with K&C Police - because, yet again, they don't 'stack-up' .

Indeed, on 23 May 2002, DC Adams told me that Resident K was also the originator of the anonymous phone calls, (of which there were apparently three), made from a landline phone . He claimed that the calls had been made by this resident from the Carlton Tower hotel. He added “As Mrs [x] has received a warning for the calls made from the mobile phone, I consider the matter close”.  (captured in my 31 May 2002 email to Sir Harris)

I viewed this as yet another concocted story – for the brain dead – as it implies that Resident K had booked a room in the hotel which is c. 120m from Jefferson House where she had a two-bedroom flat. How could the calls have been traced otherwise? And the “I consider the matter closed” was the equivalent of, yet, another ‘Get lost!’

My view is that Kensington & Chelsea police had no intention of getting back to me (see above, comments from DC Adams, and DI Webster) - but did so because I had written to Sir Toby Harris.

My chaser email led Sir Toby Harris to reply on 11 July 2002

"Mrs [x] is held fully responsible for the crime" .   (At last, I had this in writing!).

He goes on to say,

"There was therefore no option other than to hold Mrs [x] fully responsible for this crime" 

and

"...you seem convinced that Mrs [x] acted under the direction of Mr Ladsky.

While this may or may not be the case, the police cannot act on the basis of your suspicions, however strongly held, and must act only on the basis of established facts" .

As to investigating the phone calls from the landline, Sir Toby Harris wrote:

"Although the subscriber for the landline was never identified (NB: Obviously, there had been a change of plan in the story I would be given: this v. above: "I consider the matter closed"), you must appreciate that officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure when investigating a case and as such, it seems reasonable to assume that following Mrs [x] confession (NB: indication of a set-up) nothing further would be gained by ascertaining that information".

(NB: It certainly would not be in the interest of Andrew Ladsky. And, as DC Adams told me on 27 March 2002 "you won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky")

"While I can understand your frustration at this turn of events, it does seem unlikely that ascertaining this information would assist your ultimate goal which appears to be to prove that you are being harassed by a party or parties that wish to force the sale of your home for their own financial gain"

(NB: Evidently, the police does not consider this as amounting to a crime)

I replied to Sir Harris on 4 August 2002. In this letter, I wrote, among others:  

" ...I would point out that there is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. But, this is conveniently ignored by the police" .

I concluded my letter by stating:

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

Subsequent events only served to reinforce my feelings (see below)

The 7 August 2002 reply from the Metropolitan Police Authority to my 4 August 2002 letter, once again stresses the need for "evidence"

I should also add that in 2002 Kensington & Chelsea police tried to talk to me. However, given my experience, the only communication I was prepared to have with the police was in writing.

Because of this, in a letter dated 20 June 2002, the A/Inspector, Chelsea Police station, informed me that my

"...original letter has not been recorded as a complaint because I have been unable to establish if you wish to substantiate your original letter" . "If you wish to discuss." .

Evidently, Kensington & Chelsea police does not consider the contents of - signed - correspondence as evidence.  

Hence, same attitude as two other government departments in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea: West London County Court in 2002-04 and in 2007-08, as well as Kensington & Chelsea Housing... but, 'mysteriously', they ALL treat any document from Andrew Ladsky et.al. and their aides as the 'Gospel'. Funny that! And in fact, just Ladsky's words as well - as evidenced by what took place in 2003... and subsequently in 2007.

Please note that my correspondence with Sir Harris has NOT been captured in the police report (see key point # 10)

My seven-month battles with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002, and subsequently with the Police Complaints Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority have cost me c. 100 hours of my life (= nearly THREE WEEKS, based on a 35-hour week)

 

Back to list

(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 - "Crime report" CR:5602261/03

I filed a 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police (point # 5, below), leading to my obtaining the police report CR:5602261/03 in relation to this so-called 'complaint' - to which I replied on 13 August 2009, supported by a 101 page bundle of 49 documents, demanding changes to the report - as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, to seek - and obtain - an end to the processing of data “likely to cause damage or distress”, as well as obtain correction of data to ensure that it is “fair, lawful and accurate”.

Following a 25 August 2009 reply that amounts to a 'get lost', I replied on 20 September 2009 insisting on my rights (for subsequent events, see point # 5, below)

Key points of note:

(1) In this "crime report", as well as the other two (for 2002 complaint: CR:5604102/02 (point # 1, above); for 2007 so-called 'complaint': CR:5605839/07 (point # 3, below)), Andrew Ladsky is described as just my "neighbour" (Page 15 - Suspect details – ‘Known by victim’ of the CR:5602261/03 report) - with the aim of (1) giving him scope to play the ‘poor innocent victim’ ; (2) adding weight to his scurrilous accusations against me ; (3) conveying a negative, false impression of me, and undermine my credibility.

On page 25 – '25/01/2003 – 13h55 – CIV???’ of the CR:5602261/03 report: Ladsky portrays himself / is portrayed as having no connection with the ownership of Jefferson House, as the entry reads “The suspect seems to think that the victim is behind the company who has sent these letters asking for money”

(2) Page 22 - 'Main classification - Description' of the CR:5602261/03 report states “SUBSTANT/Offence of harassment”. Contrast that with the fact that (1) in his 27 January 2003 threatening letter to me, Neil Watson PC206BS wrote "... any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you..." ; (2) this classification is FALSE as I have NOT committed an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

(3) As evidenced in his threatening letter of 27 January 2003, Neil Watson PC206BS, "fully recorded" the so-called complaint against me on the police system - BEFORE - contacting me.

(4) FAILURE TO PROBE, and therefore FAILURE TO RECORD the context of situations - as it would discredit Ladsky’s so-called "complaint" against me

Page 25 – '25/01/2003 – 13h55 – CIV ???' of the CR:5602261/03 report states “- 60 – the suspect was walking out of her flat and shouted “Go fuck yourself!’"

(In my 13 August 2009 reply (pg 17), I state "...as I was in the corridor, about to get out of Jefferson House – totally ignoring him... Ladsky said to me: ”Better luck next time!” (NB: three weeks earlier he told me "I am going to get you this year"), followed by a sarcastic laugh". I add "I concluded that he was referring to the impending London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003 – and that, in light of his comment, had ensured that it would be ‘sewn-up’" I followed this by quoting events confirming my then assumption) (see London LVT section for evidence, as well as London LVT case summary section)....

...while in my 20 September 2009 reply (pg 23), I wrote "This failure to capture the ‘full picture’ creates a negative, misleading perception of me as it suggests that I said this to him without being provoked. (This is all part of the objective of portraying me as “mad” – something which Ladsky (evidently, among others) tells anybody prepared to listen to him)")

(5) RECORDING other MALICIOUS, FALSE and therefore LIBELLOUS data about me

Page 25 – '25/01/2003 – 13h55 – CIV ???' of the CR:5602261/03 report states “The suspect say ‘Go fuck yourself’ to the victim when she sees approx 3 or 4 times... This verbal abuse started in November”.

These accusations ARE FALSE, and therefore libellous. (NB: I conclude that the objective is to make the so-called "complaint" ‘stick’ under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as s.7(3) of the Act states “A "course of conduct" must involve conduct on at least two occasions” - and thereby justify filing the so-called "complaint" as a "crime report") (One of the FALSE accusations from this report was 'conveniently' recycled in the context of the 2007 so-called "complaint" - Key point # 7)

(Note that, concurrently, frustrated by the fact that the 'Neil Watson PC206BS' scare tactic' of 27 January 2003 had failed, Ladsky had also put his other puppet, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, 'on the case' by sending me a threatening and libellous letter dated 4 February 2003)

(6) FAILURE TO PROBE, and therefore FAILURE TO RECORD:

- (1) The content of the "Letters from the managing agents for a service charge to the flats... sent to all the residents to pay for this refurbishment" (Page 25 - 25/01/2003 – 13h55 – CIV ???' , CR:5602261/03 report), as well as surrounding events - because 'inconvenient' for Ladsky

(In my 20 September 2009 letter (pg 23), I wrote "The incidental consequence of processing the data that “the letter was sent to all the residents” impacts on me as it implies that the service charge demand was fair and reasonable (which it definitely was not), and thereby – falsely - portrays me as the only objector to the service demand (which I most definitely was not, as evidenced by the fact that 14 flats ended-up being listed on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim) – with numerous negative connotations about me e.g. that I fail to honour my contractual obligations, etc."

(NB: Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) 'service charge' demand of 15 July 2002 claiming £736,206 “for repair and maintenance works” was FRAUDULENT (My Diary 22 Nov 08 (in which, among others, I captured SS =Ladsky et.al.'s 21 October 2003 'offer' for £6,350 v. his original demand of £14,400 (22 November 2002 Particulars of claim) ; My Diary 6 May 08 ; Major works ; London LVT # 3 , # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18).

- (2) The entry on page 25 – '25/01/2003 – 13h55 – CIV ???' of the CR:5602261/03 report states "The suspect on her work headed paper wrote letters accusing the victim of theft". This is NOT TRUE. It refers to my sending a personal fax of 24 October 2002, copied to the LVT, and one to the LVT, on the same date - (stupidly) on my then employer's headed paper - an opportunity that was, of course, immediately seized by Ladsky who put his puppet, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, 'on the case' (see e.g. My Diary 15 May 08 for detail).

(But, as it turned out - in my non-lawyer opinion: Ladsky et.al. DID COMMIT A THEFT - ON A GRAND SCALE: c. £500,000 (inc. the contingency fund): - My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; 6 May 08 ; Major works ; London LVT # 3 , # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18)

(7) On page 28 - '06/02/2003 – 11h06 – PC N Watson' of the CR:5602261/03 report, Neil Watson PC206BS FALSELY claims “Have attended address nkr have left note for susp to call me” - as I NEVER found "a note" from him

(8) Neil Watson PC206BS has FAILED TO RECORD the fact that he sent me this 6 February 2003 letter chasing contact from me.

(9) Neil Watson PC206BS LIED in the last entry, page 28 - '12/02/2003 – 10h44 – PS' by stating “OIC has attempted to make contact with the suspect but this has been fruitless” - as he FAILED TO RECORD the fact that I replied to him in a letter dated 11 February 2003 - asking for "precise" detail - in writing - of the accusation against me.

(See point # 5, below, for the outrageous excuses by Acting Chief Inspector, Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards', K&C police, for REFUSING to amend this (and the other two reports)

Back to list

In January 2003, Andrew Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him". By 'amazing coincidence' it was c. one week before the first day of the London LVT hearing.

This was preceded on 3 January 2003 by Ladsky telling me "I am going to get you this year". Evidently anticipating that he would "get me" at the 5 February 2003 tribunal hearing (in the expectation that I would turn-up alone), on 20 January 2003, Ladsky told me "Better luck next time", followed by a sarcastic laugh.

The so-called 'complaint' from Ladsky generated a letter from Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator (NB !!!!), dated 27 January 2003 in which he wrote:  

"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."

So much for Neil Watson's comment:

"I wish to make it clear that my role in this is purely neutral at the moment..."

(See points # 2 , # 3, above)

Very clearly, no concern here about: "acting only on the basis of established facts" (The 11 July 2002 reply to me from Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority).  

And, obviously, another of Sir Toby's comment in his 11 July 2002 letter that I must

"appreciate that officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure when investigating a case such as this",

did not apply in this instance either.

Moreover, whereas complaints (spread over time) against Andrew Ladsky by at least five residents are not recorded, his so-called 'complaint' against me is! Funny that! My assessment of this: COMPLICITY

Note also the 'Ladsky style' (an assumption from Watson's handwriting, including of the address on the envelop) - and the threat in Neil Watson's letter:

"... but it would be remiss of me not to advise you of the following: Please avoid (if you can) any confrontation with Mr Ladsky or there may be further consequences"

What "other consequences" had already taken place by then? The fact that, IN SPITE of the claims in this letter, PC Neil Watson had ALREADY - FALSELY - recorded the laughable, so-called "complaint" against me as "Harassment" in a "crime report" ... and in readiness for 'recycling' the FALSE accusation at the next opportunity? (see below, 2007 "crime report", Key point # 7)

Message? 'Do whatever Andrew Ladsky wants, including paying him whatever he asks you - or else we'll get you'?

Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator, asked me in his 27 January 2003 letter to contact him "to clarify this situation" .

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?)

Kensington police certainly has no sense of the ridicule.

My not responding led to another letter dated 6 February 2003 from Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator:   "...please contact me" (see key points # 6 , # 7, above)

When I replied by recorded delivery on 11 February 2003 asking for precise details - "in writing" - of the accusation, there was NO (official) follow-up whatsoever by the police (see key point # 8, above). WHY NOT? Obvious: it was another set-up. ('NO (official)...' because, as stated at the start of this page, I believe that, 'unofficially', the police has been interested in my movements for a long time).

Conclusion: I - the victim - end-up being treated as though I am the criminal (breaches under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are punishable by imprisonment), whereas the criminal ends-up being treated as though he is the victim. That's the 'great' English police! (= same experience as with the courts, etc.)

Please note that I had brought Kensington & Chelsea Police to the attention of my then Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Portillo, in my pack to him dated 27 May 2002 - from which (on page 18) I quote:

"Kensington and Chelsea police has proved unhelpful, unpleasant and even obstructive"

Please, note also that in the pack to Mr Portillo, I also report that I have been the victim of harassment, intimidation and assault. I also state that other residents, as well as Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau (hence, like K&C police - also in his constituency), has, likewise suffered harassment and intimidation by Andrew Ladsky. (The outcome of my contacting my MP - who should be helping me? Three replies that amount to 'get lost!'. And worse when I approached his successor, Sir Malcolm Rifkind in 2009 - as he connived against me. No surprise when you see what goes in the House of Commons (as well in the House of Lords: My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09)).

Determined to implement his 3 January 2003 threat "I am going to get you this year" - as well as continue in his attempts to scare me, make me give-up challenging his Application to the London LVT (My Diary: 20 Jan 03 ; 23 Jan 03 ; 5 Feb 03 ), Ladsky also asked his solicitor, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to join in 'on the act' (as Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had done when two of my fellow leaseholders had reported Ladsky for harassment and intimidation to the same police station) - by sending me a highly defamatory and threatening letter on 4 February 2003, stating among others that its client would

"take injunctive steps prior to other proceedings", that I

"made quite improper and defamatory allegations regarding the probity of our client..." and that

"The due process of law is under way to claim the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you"

(Contrast that with the fact that:

And that criminal vermin does this with the blessings of its so-called 'regulator': the Law Society. (see e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 for the overview of my complaints) - and there is clearly no point reporting them to the police (point # 6, below)

(NB: I am surprised that, following my calling him"a pile of s***" during w/c 4 Feb 08, Ladsky did not run to his "crime investigators" 'friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to complain)

Back to list

(3) In 2007 - 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 'Community Safety Unit', made 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, (in my opinion), impersonated a police officer - "Crime report" CR:5605839/07

I filed a 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request to the police (point # 5, below), leading to my obtaining the police report CR:5605839/07 in relation to this so-called 'complaint' - to which I replied on 13 August 2009, supported by a 101 page bundle of 49 documents, demanding changes to the report - as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, to seek - and obtain - an end to the processing of data “likely to cause damage or distress”, as well as obtain correction of data to ensure that it is “fair, lawful and accurate”.

Following a 25 August 2009 reply that amounts to a 'get lost', I replied on 20 September 2009 insisting on my rights (for subsequent events, see point # 5, below)

Key points of note:

(1) The blatantly obvious EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION WITH ANDREW LADSKY is that K&C POLICE NEVER CONTACTED ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME IN RELATION TO THIS SO-CALLED "COMPLAINT" BY LADSKY - AND CONSEQUENTLY TOTALLY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS - IN SPITE OF IMPLYING TO MY AMERICAN WEBSITE HOST THAT I HAD 'COMMITTED A CRIME'

(1) FALSE, LIBELLOUS, UNLAWFUL CLASSIFICATION of the CR:5605839/07 report:

  • Page 1 – 'General information – Branch' - FALSELY - states: “Branch – RI racial incident; RS anti-Semitic incident”
  • Page 2 - EQUALLY FALSELY - states: "General information - DV/Hate crime"
  • Page 3 - ALSO FASELY states: "Race? Y" ; "Faith/Religion/Belief? Y"
  • Page 19 - and ALSO FALSELY states: "Main classification – Description: “SUBSTANT/Racial incident”
  • Page 26 – '19/03/2007 – 17h59 – TDC SJ Dowling' “Advised by DS – 91 – at the Racial crime Directorate at NSY that there is no crime made out and therefore this should be classed as a racial incident and nothing more” It is NOT a racial incident. In addition to the fact that this was entered THREE DAYS AFTER Dowling sent his malicious, libellous, illegal email of 16 March 2007 to my website Host - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER has been provided by K&C police in support of this - as can be seen in Dowling's email of 20 March 2007 to my website Host.
  • Page 27 – '17/02/2009 – 99' states “The Branch flags ‘FH’, ‘RJ’, ‘RS’ were present in this crime report. As a result of the introduction of the new ‘DV/Hate crime’ tab on the General Information screen today, there are now associated fields (‘HateCrimeReligion’, ‘HateCrimeRace’) on the new tab and these have been selected” Same reply: NOT TRUE

It is a breach of my rights under: (1) the Data Protection Act 1998, (2) the Human Rights Act 1998, (3) the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, (4) the Defamation Act 1996, as well as (5) a breach by the officers of the Police Act.

By contrast, what Andrew Ladsky has done to me / ordered to be done to me since 2002 certainly qualifies (among others) as 'Hate crimes' - and his so-called "complaints" against me to his 'friends' at K&C police ARE in part MOTIVATED BY RACISM - because I am of part German descent and he is Jewish.

(NB: In my 20 September 2009 reply (pg 16), I wrote "Yet again, it is fascinating to see K&C police’s readiness to capture, false, disparaging comments and innuendos about me v. its blind eye attitude to Andrew Ladsky and his puppets’ criminal offences against me (and my fellow leaseholders) 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 ; the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994. Etc.")

(2) In this report, as well as the other two (for 2002 complaint: CR:5604102/02 (point # 1, above); for the 2003 so-called 'complaint': CR:5602261/03, (point # 2, above)), Andrew Ladsky is described as just my "neighbour": Page 12 - 'Suspect details - Known by victim', the entry states "Neighbour of victim" - with the aim of (1) giving him scope to play the ‘poor innocent victim’, and (2) thereby give some weight to his malicious, slanderous accusations against me – and for K&C police the opportunity to endorse them ; (3) saving him from having to explain – and therefore avoid probing, and hence avoid capturing ‘inconvenient’ information which would discredit his ‘story’ and accusations against me ; (4) conveying a negative, false, misleading, disparaging impression of me - and thereby undermine my credibility

(3) MALICIOUS, FALSE - TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED - and therefore LIBELLOUS and UNLAWFUL ACCUSATIONS in the CR:5605839/07 report:

- (1) Page 19 – 'Classification – Method', that “A web page has been created which is alleged to contain anti-Semitic, anti-black, and anti-Asian pictures and text”.

The – FALSE – claim that my website contains “anti-Semitic” material is contained in other parts of this report - and was the FALSE accusation made against me by TDC Simon J Dowling in his scurrilous, libellous and therefore illegal email of 16 March 2007 to my website Host.

The – EQUALLY FALSE claim – that my website contains “Anti-black and anti-Asian pictures and text” is the only reference to this in the report - 'of course', WITHOUT providing ANY evidence in support - and is the first time I was made aware of these FALSE, libellous and therefore unlawful accusations.

The entry continues “…there are parts of the site which are alleged to be extremely upsetting and insulting"...

...`“There are a number of sections which are alleged to be of a racial nature and numerous references by name to the victim”...

...“The sections of the web site that the complaint relates to is headed “My Diary” 2002-2007. The specific remarks and pictures that are being complained about are contained throughout…”

Of course: NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER is provided in support of these accusations.

(NB: Considering what I report in the Introduction to My Diary, and for years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, post launch of site, and 2007 (let alone in the rest of my website) the LEVEL OF BLINDNESS by TDC Simon J Dowling, PC K O’Brien, et.al. at K&C police IS EXTRAORDINARY - as referred, e.g.in my 20 September 2009 letter, above) (I hold the view that the appropriate description for their EXTREME 'blindness' is CORRUPTION)

- (2) Page 25 – 16/03/2007 – 18h56 – TDC SJ Dowling', of the CR:5605839/07 report “There is a lot of slanderous comments on the site mainly directed at – 79 – but also at K&C and even MPs, the Prime Minister and DPM. Also against solicitors and many others” (As I point out in my 13 August 2009 reply (pg 33) “Slander” is the ‘spoken word’, and ‘libel’ the ‘written word’. There is NO recording on my website) (At least: not yet)

Ditto: NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER is provided in support of these accusations.

(In my 20 September 2009 letter, my typical reply is "These accusations are unlawful, malicious, scurrilous and libellous because they are not true. They are trumped-up accusations concocted by Ladsky, the police and probably parties external to the police. No evidence has EVER been supplied" - while, e.g. on page 12, I wrote "The reason no evidence has EVER been supplied – and continues to NOT be supplied - is because these allegations against me are false – and K&C police knows that, which is why it opted to NOT contact me at ANY point in time in relation to this so-called ‘complaint’. It gave it free rein to capture fabricated lies against me")

(4) TDC SJ Dowling FAILED TO RECORD my website Host’s reply to his 16 March 2007 libellous email - as well as FAILED TO RECORD his equally libellous 20 March 2007 email response to my ISP

(In my 20 September 2009 letter, (pg 28), I wrote "Of course, this has not been recorded because it is most inconvenient, as it undermines the trumped-up accusations against me")

(5) FALSE, TWISTED REPRESENTATION OF EVENTS, and FAILURE TO PROBE in the CR:5605839/07 report - intended to convey a misleading and detrimental perception of me / to disparage me / discredit me - and thereby add weight to Ladsky's so-called "complaint" against me:

- (1) Page 22 – '15/03/2007 – 16h14 – PC K O’Brien' that I "created [my website] in response to a large service charge which [I] regarded as excessive and unfair”.

As I wrote in my reply, while (1) the 'service charge' was not just "excessive" - as it amounts to a c.£500,000 THEFT (My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; 6 May 08 ; Major works ; London LVT # 3 , # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18) ; (2) it was not just “unfair” - as, in addition to a breach of covenants in my lease, it is a breach of numerous Acts – many of which are punishable by imprisonment - as blatantly obvious from my website: As evidenced by my website: it is NOT TRUE that I launched it "because of this". I did it as a last resort attempt to get justice and redress - as per my legisltatie rights.

PC K O’Brien then states “This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly” (I wrote (1) page 27 of my 13 August 2009 reply “Quite significantly” is a massive understatement given that it reduced the global sum demanded of £736,206 by £500,000 down to £236,206" ( London LVT # 3 , # 4 , # 6 , # 7) ; (2) page 24 of my 20 September 2009 letter "This statement is therefore highly misleading and intended to undermine the fact that – as per my rights - I challenged SS i.e. Ladsky’s application to the tribunal – and thereby contributes in conjuring up a negative perception of me")

PC K O’Brien goes on to state “In order to challenge this charge it actually cost a considerably larger sum of money than she saved” (It very certainly did: £30,000 in relation to the London LVT hearings... to challenge a - FRAUDULENT - 'service charge' demand of £14,400 - see: London LVT # 6 , # 8.1 , # 8.1.3 , # 8.1.5 , # 8.2) and c. £10,000 to fight the equally FRAUDULENT claim in West London County court e.g. WLCC # 11)

(As I wrote in my 20 September 2009 letter, page 14 "...considering that a c.£500,000 theft actually took place, it is a dire indictment of the so-called ‘justice’ system of this country that I was not able to recoup my costs. So, yes, keep that statement in!") (NB: The London LVT, and WLCC KNEW that a major theft was taking place: LVT Key points ; WLCC Key points)

PC K O’Brien continues “Since this she has been extremely upset and is seeking compensation and retribution for her time, money and effort” (= VERY SICK, TWISTED MINDS)!)

(In my 13 August 2009 reply (pg 29) I wrote, among others "While I note with great interest that, in his choice of word, Ladsky admits to having committed “wrongful or criminal acts” - as very amply evidenced in my c. 30 battles since 2002, what I am seeking is ‘justice and redress’ i.e. the rights I have been told by the State, and the institutions, I have the right to demand"

(6) FAILURE TO PROBE, and therefore FAILURE to record evidence in support of the claims / accusations - with the aim of conveying a misleading and detrimental perception of me / disparaging me / discrediting me - and thereby add weight to Ladsky's so-called "complaint"

(1) Page 25 – 16/03/2007 – 18h56 – TDC SJ Dowling, CR:5605839/07 report “About four years ago – 75 – organised for refurbishments on the flats. Each household was to pay a certain amount of costs through the service charge. The suspect took exception to this and went to a tribunal to get this charge reduces” (NB: I was far from being the 'only one' challenging the 'service charge' demand: the WLCC claim of 29 November 2002 was against 14 flats (see WLCC); see also London LVT # 8.1.2 for communications from my fellow leaseholders to the tribunal)

TDC SJ Dowling continues “Despite the values of the flats going up a considerable amount the suspect is still obviously not happy with what – 75 – initiated” (= An implied approval by TDC SJ Dowling of the c. £500,000 fraud by Ladsky et.al. and their aides, and therefore support for the fact that it helped them generate a multi-million Pound jackpot. (As TDC SJ Dowling claimed to have 'looked at my site', he would be aware of these facts))

(7) RECYCLING OF MALICIOUS, FALSE, LIBELLOUS and therefore UNLAWFUL ACCUSATIONS against me from the 2003 so-called 'complaint' (point # 2, above) - intended to give additional weight to the FALSE accusations against me

Page 26 – '16/03/2007 – 19h07 – TDC SJ Dowling', CR:5605839/07 “There is a previous CRIS 5602261/03 which relates to an harassment of – 64 – by Ms Rawé no further action was taken at the time. But it shows Ms Rawé used to swear at – 85 – when seeing – 86 – in the communal area. (See 2003 'complaint', above) This was when the service charge dispute first arose” (see also Key point # 6, above)

(As I wrote in my 20 September 2009 reply (page 9) "Oh dear! How ‘magnanimous’ to “not take action at the time”! Of course no action “was taken” as I have not committed an offence")

(NB: Isn't it 'fascinating' to note how Dowling happily recycles the FALSE accusation in Ladsky's previous, 2003 "complaint" againt me, but TOTALLY ignores my complaint against him in 2002, as well as the complaint, from at least four other residents, of suffering harassment from Ladsky? Silly me! Of course: "There is no crime report against Mr Ladsky")

(8) LIBELLOUS, MALICIOUS AND SCURRILOUS expressions of opinions about my mental health

(1) CR:5605839/07 report, third paragraph, page 22 – '15/03/2007 – 16h14 – PC K O’Brien', "...although it appears to be becoming quite paranoid. She thinks the police may be following her as well as numerous people employed by her enemies" (see e.g. Introduction to My Diary, including latter part; My Dairy 2010 - for evidence)

(And in 2009 and 2010 I continue to be monitored, if not even more than before - because I continue fighting for my rights for justice, redress and protection (see, in addition to the police, point # 5, below: Sir Malcolm Rifkind ; Parliamentary Ombudsman ; my Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice') - I assume, in case I meet with somebody who can, like so many others, be bought to act against me (My Diary 2009 Introduction). (As very amply demonstrated by my experience (and that of others - My Diary Feb 09) the 'little people' who 'dare' to stand-up against the 'big people' must be taught a lesson...

...and, concurrently, my network of British contacts is being manipulated into trying to make me give-up my fight (My Diary 2009 Introduction)

(2) CR:5605839/07 report, third paragraph, page 25 – 16/03/2007 – 18h56 – TDC SJ Dowling' (The 'Community Safety Officer' !!!)“Looking at the website it seems the suspect thinks she is being followed by either the police or – 77 – 78. This is not the case and she is obviously extremely paranoid…” (Ditto. see e.g. Introduction to My Diary, including latter part; My Diary 2010 - for evidence)

(As I wrote in my 20 September 2009 reply, (page 15), after stating that I had evidence to support my claim "To this can be added K&C police’s very blatant siding with Andrew Ladsky – and therefore protection – which was already blatantly obvious from my experience with K&C police since 2002, and has been further confirmed by the data currently held about me by the police, as well as your highly dismissive, arrogant and contemptuous reply of 25 August 2009 to my 13 August 2009 response")

ALSO OF NOTE: while TDC Simon J Dowling did NOT find the time to contact me - at any point in time - in relation to this so-called 'complaint' - thereby TOTALLY DENYING ME THE RIGHT to defend myself against the FALSE accusations - he found the time to contact social services.

Indeed, in the last part of his '16/03/2007 – 18h56' entry, TDC Simon J Dowling wrote “I believe she may have some mental issues so will be speaking to social services to see if they are aware of her”

I view this as playing, into, among others, Ladsky's hand who portrays me as "mad" to whoever wants to give him the time of day (e.g. My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08 , 15 May 08 , his 26 March 2007 letter to KPMG, my then employer)

(In my 20 September 2009 reply (page 16), I wrote "This entry provides proof of the extent of the moral depravation that pervades K&C police, and of the extent to which it and its behind-the-scene backers will go to help a ‘certain’ thief get away with a multi-million Pound jackpot.

I am absolutely incensed by this entry, added to the previous claims that I suffer from “paranoia”. This, in addition to your highly dismissive, arrogant and contemptuous reply, leads me to provide comprehensive evidence in support of my position that this “expression of opinion about my mental condition” is malicious, vicious, scurrilous and libellous, and the action a despicable, morally depraved attack on my reputation." I followed this by four pages which include, among others, brief detail of events with Dr-AG, Dr-MP, and my ex employer, KPMG)

(9) Note that behind the scene, TDC SJ Dowling et. al. were desperately trying to find a way of forcing the closure of my website – including evidently attempting to secure the ‘ultimate solution’: getting me sectioned (as suggested by the last part of the 16/03/2007 – 18h56 entry) (as discussed under the previous point) - as, three days later, under '19/03/2007 – 17h59 – TDC SJ Dowling', page 26 of the CR:5605839/07 report, TDC SJ Dowling wrote “I am still trying to get the website closed down”. Oh dear! Oh dear! The scare tactic used by TDC SJ Dowling in his highly defamatory, libellous, illegal email of 16 March 2007 to my website Host implying that I had ‘committed a crime’ - failed to do the trick. (But 'they' still had a go at trying to get me locked-up - see Intro to My Diary 2009, Medical (2) Dr MP. SICK does not begin to describe these people)

ALL OF THIS = REASON KENSINGTON & CHELSEA POLICE NEVER CONTACTED ME - AT ANY POINT IN TIME - ABOUT THIS SO-CALLED "COMPLAINT" - AND CONSEQUENTLY TOTALLY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST IT

CORRUPT TO THE CORE!

(But, as I report in my 13 August 2009 letter (pg 37), communication DID take place between K&C police and my then employer, KPMG: "On 26/27 April 2007, three days after I gave prominence to the events on my website, the message that, "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" was communicated to me through my then employer, KPMG. By then, five weeks had elapsed since the 20 March 2007 e-mail from Simon J. Dowling. Nor had he contacted my website Host since". In my 20 September 2009 letter (pg 37) I highlight that (like the ALL the other questions) my question in relation to this communication has NOT been answered by the police).

(See point # 5, below, for the outrageous excuses by Acting Chief Inspector, Steve McSorley, 'Professional Standards', K&C police, for REFUSING to amend this (and the other two reports)

 

Back to list

In 2007 Kensington and Chelsea police continued to confirm that it considers me as having NO RIGHTS. (The events are covered in detail in My Diary 20 Mar 07).

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’ at Kensington & Chelsea police for assistance.

Falling over backwards to help him, the assistance took the form of an email, dated 16 March 2007, from TDC Simon J. Dowling, of the 'Community Safety Unit’ of Kensington & Chelsea police, to my website Host stating: “Hi the above site contains some inappropriate use of the words "pigs and monkeys" which are racially abusive terms towards Jewish people from the Nazi's. This is directed at a particular person…”

By early 2006, I had become very angry at being monitored and hounded as though I am a terrorist, as well as being physically threatened - and started to use the words ‘pigs and monkeys’ in my online Diary to refer to the scums who are doing this to me (‘pigs’ being the recognised, derogatory term for the police). As I wrote in My Diary, on 23 August 2006 "Visitor to the site, how would you feel if you were subjected to this kind of treatment every single day - any time of day? Add to that threatening behaviour”

In addition, by then, I had already lost all respect for the police as a consequence of my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002 and 2003.

Clearly with the objective of scaring my website Host into closing down my site, in his 16 March 2007 email, Simon Dowling implied that I had committed "a crime" – without providing evidence in support, as he wrote:

“I am the police officer dealing with this crime. I would therefore be grateful if this site could be taken down”

As I wrote (pages 4 and 5) of 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 a police 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, as well as link to Mail on Sunday 20 Sep 09 article)

 

As a result of being challenged by my website Host who asked “Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?” in his 20 March 2007 reply, Simon J Dowling backed down stating

“…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”.

Demonstrating outrageous racism and xenophobia, Simon Dowling labelled me a “Nazi” by writing in the same email of 20 March 2007

"The producer of this website is franco-german in origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime. Obviously the victim we have has picked up on this as he is Jewish" (NB: In name rather than in practice)

Clearly, TDC Simon J Dowling breached, among others, the Metropolitan Police Service’s policy stated at the bottom of his email of 16 March 2007: “It is the policy of the MPS that: MPS personnel…must not use MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail (e-mail) messages or attachments: containing racist, homophobic, sexist, defamatory, offensive, illegal or otherwise inappropriate material”.

It is blatantly oblivious from the fact that Simon Dowling backed down as a result of being challenged by my website Host that the objective of the involvement by K&C police was to close down my website. On the upside, it showed my website Host what I am facing in this country.

Please note that TDC SJ Dowling did NOT record the reply from my website Host to his 16 March 2007 email, NOR did he record his 20 March 2007 reply. (Key point # 4, above)

What is ALSO VERY TELLING – in light of the implied accusation that I had ‘committed a crime’ - is the fact that Kensington & Chelsea police did NOT contact me AT ANY POINT IN TIME following this so-called "complaint" - CONSEQUENTLY TOTALLY DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS. Instead, three days after I gave prominence to the events on my website, the message that "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" was communicated to me through my (then) employer, KPMG [ADD]. By then, five weeks had elapsed since the 20 March 2007 email. (Key point # 9, above)

WHY did K&C police NOT contact ME - AT ANY POINT IN TIME - about MY website following the so-called "complaint" by Ladsky?

WHY has K&C police consequently DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS?

What is also 'fascinating' in light of what I had reported in My Diary - just for 2006, including being physically threatened (*) - let alone in the rest of my website, is that TDC Simon J. Dowling of Kensington & Chelsea police's 'Community Safety Unit' considered it fit to just send these two emails (16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007)

(*) Example: Mr Neil Mitchell, a whistleblower, also reported being physically threatened.

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! At the service of the criminals.

(Others are also raising serious concerns about the police)

Back to list

(4) In conclusion, at least five leaseholders have complained to Kensington & Chelsea police against Andrew Ladsky:

•  myself

•  Leaseholder H who was running the residents association - Leaseholder E confirmed this to me in an email, dated 18 April 2002 (Head Residents Association)

•  Leaseholder A (Elderly Resident) - he gave me the 11 October 2001 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT, confirming this. He also told me that the person he had (subsequently ?) spoken to at Kensington & Chelsea police was Emma Whitlock, number 92ES, and he gave me a telephone number, suggesting I contact her. I never did.

•  Leaseholder B (Other Residents) - he gave me the 11 October 2001 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT, confirming this.

•  Resident K (Resident K) - which DC Adams told me himself (as captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to DI Paul Webster)

'Apparently', the tenant of Leaseholder E also complained against Andrew Ladsky sometime in 2004 (see Other Residents section)

Are there other leaseholders / their tenants who have reported Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police?

Oh! but of course, as Detective Inspector Paul Webster wrote in his 23 April 2002 reply to me

"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"

And indeed, as Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor captured in her identical letter of 11 October 2001 to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B:

"The police have investigated the allegation and have determined that it was completely unfounded"

(NB: It 'seems' to me that this 11 October 2002 letter from Ayesha Salim amounts to harassment and intimidation of witnesses - which is a very serious offence)

In addition to which:

There is the harassment and intimidation of our local Citizens Advice Bureau because it tried to help us (Nucleus, Citizens Advice Bureau)

Comparison of the 14 November 2001 letter it received from 'Steel Services' with the 25 January 2001 letter Andrew Ladsky sent me (and other leaseholders) suggests the same originator: same layout, same typeface, same writing style.  

(Another letter in the 'same style', from 'SS', dated 2 January 2001 was sent to Leaseholder A, the Elderly Resident)

(In his malicious, libellous 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, has 'helpfully' confirmed what I knew from the time of what I view as the vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident: his client is Andrew Ladsky)

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 with Kensington & Chelsea police in 2007 (My Diary 16 Mar 07)

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

C O R R U P T I O N!

Back to list

(5) Forcing me to go into a nine-month battle, the Home Office continues to breach my statutory rights - this time under the Data Protection Act 1998, following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request - and does this with endorsement at the highest level

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 point # 1, above, started with Kensington & Chelsea police in early 2002.

The conduct of K&C police at the time, and subsequently in 2003 and in 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 what justification does the police have 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 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)

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 the 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 the Public Access Office 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"
  • "2.3 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.

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; the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994. 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". Having said that I "quite clearly expressed [my] concerns" he suggested I contact the Information Commissioner "if [I am] dissatisfied with [the] response from [the Public Access Office]"

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 letter to Mark Heath, and of the supporting enclosures i.e. my 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… UK law includes a range of human rights which protect you from poor treatment and prejudice, and which require you to have equal and fair treatment from public authorities"

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, 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, 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 - and supported with 11 enclosures to both), 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"

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.

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 Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson, 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" , and 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".

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

(NB: Considering the events related in this section, it is clear that the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, ALSO APPROVES of the conduct of ALL the named individuals on this page - including that of Mark Heath who, by evidently endorsing the conduct of his officers, acts as a fertiliser for malpractice. A visit to the Yorkshire police forces 'might' enlighten Sir Paul. Perhaps the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, could suggest that to him)

 

•  "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”

(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, 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. 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"

•  "...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.

•  "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 I expected from DI Lee's letter (and from the evidence - see below) - he had correctly anticipated the reply 'from the IPCC'.

Indeed, in his 22 February 2010 letter to me, 'the Casework Manager' 'from' the IPCC wrote:

"By law, the police have to investigate or locally resolve every complaint they record. 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"

(NB: As I wrote in my 18 February 2010 to DI Lee "What a great message to criminals!")

"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"

(NB: Due to my experience when I filed a complaint in 2002 (point # 1 - which, among others, made me waste c. 100 hours of my life), I concluded that there was no point my filing a complaint in 2003 and 2007. Having since seen what Kensington police captured - and failed to capture on the police systems for 2002, 2003 and 2007 - added to the 'response' to my Subject Access Request: there was clearly no point filing a 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... 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"

(NB: UNBELIEVABLE! Consider (1) What I am reporting in my 2 December 2009 letter (above) ; (2) the claims made by the IPCC as to its remit (below) ; (3) the claims made by the IPCC Chair, Nick Harding (above))

In relation to "If you would like this investigation to continue, you must write to me within seven days of this letter..." - steps were taken to ensure that I did NOT take delivery of the letter within the timescale for reply.

Indeed, the letter was posted 1st class on Tuesday 23 February 2010 (envelop). This letter was NOT at my PO Box when I went to collect my post on Sunday 28 February. The same thing has happened in relation to an 'Express' letter from one of my cousins (see My Diary 2009 Intro-Post)

Precisely one week later, in 'his' 2 March 2010 letter, 'the IPCC Casework Manager' wrote:

"The IPCC has considered 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" ...

(NB: (Aside from having no sense of the ridicule): who since 2002, HAS - AND CONTINUES - to "cause injustice" to whom?)

"...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"

(NB:

(1) Evidently, ' the IPCC' (like the police 'Professional Standards': McSorley and Lee) does NOT consider Kensington police's failure to comply with the legal requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998 (extracts on page 3 to 7 of my 20 September 2009 reply to the Public Access Office) as amounting to "misconduct"

As the IPCC comes under Alan Johnson's Ministry, the Home Office (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us.html)...

...it follows that the (then) Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, is of the view that Kensington police is above the law of the land.

(2) As to the comment "old crime reports". In addition to my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, as I wrote: (i) on page 2 of my 20 September 2009 reply to the police Public Access Office, and (ii) on page 5 of my 28 November 2009 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson

"the current guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (see below) recommend that the information about an individual is retained “until the individual reaches 100 years of age”. It means that my personal data will be ‘processed’ by a multitude of individuals"

I followed this by quoting the theft of a police laptop containing the bank details of 15,000 policemen ("Laptop thief lands the bank details of 15,000 policemen", Daily Mail, 21 Nov 06) - stating "This is in addition to the risk that the misleading, false, scurrilous and unlawful data about me hands-up in the wrong hands – as the police has shown that it cannot even prevent the loss of data on its own staff"

'The 'IPCC Casework Manager' continues:

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

Why should 'I' go "to the Information Commissioner" to get Kensington police to comply with the legal requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998? (See extracts on pages 3-7 of my 20 September 2009 reply to the police Public Access Office)

(1) K&C police HAS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY.

(2) Addressing its failure to do so is the job of Professional Standards.

(3) Addressing Professional Standards' failure to do its job is the job of the Met Commissioner and the IPCC, and...

(4) ... ultimately: the job of the Home Secretary, then Alan Johnson, to ensure that his departments perform as per the law of the land, and their legal mandate

That's what 'I', the taxpayer, pay them ALL to do. Their failure to do their job amounts to, among others, theft of my taxpayer money.

This reply is the typical public sector (*) (and professions) tactic of so-called 'regulators / watchdogs' who are in fact controlled by those they are supposed to regulate (see below) (other example: the Ministry of 'Justice'): 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)

 

 

"...if there is any way to address it" (NB: = 2nd warning bell!)

"Furthermore the IPCC considers that it would not be practical to investigate your complaint because of the substantial amount of time that has passed since these events occurred"

(NB: (1) Message to criminals not protected by 'the system': Please note! (If you are protected by 'the system' 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) ; (2) And let's not forget the claim made 'by the Casework Manager' in his previous letter of 22 February 2010 that it would be "unjust"... to investigate my complaint (above) (*); (3) 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)

(*) See an identical example from another FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE: the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Portner and Jaskel (Portner # 5)

"As a result, we (NB: That "'we" again!) have agreed to grant a dispensation.

This means the police do not have to investigate this matter"

= SAME AS THE REST who are, likewise, controlled by those they are meant to regulate...

 

...And 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 many years ago 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!)...

"...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)

Questions about the IPCC have also been raised in the media for some time e.g. 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"

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

It is clear from the above that the "we" is the police which dictated the IPCC's 'replies' - and, among others, took steps to ensure that I would miss the deadline for reply (above) (See also below point # 9.2 for other evidence about the police).

(Hence: same as in the case of 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)

In conclusion - 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.

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 Kensington police continues to ignore my legislative rights, 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 this 2 June 2010 Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998, and supporting document, to Chief Superintendent Mark Heath, Kensington police. Of course, in continuing breach of my legislative rights (points # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 5), several weeks past the statute-fixed deadline - he has ignored my correspondence.

As I have warned on three previous occassions (my 13 August 2009 and 20 September 2009 letters, as well as my 28 November 2009 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson) (in addition to also stating it in my 2 June 2010 Notice), I am now going to issue proceedings against Kensington police.

My unexpected move has triggered retribution - see My Diary 13 Jul 10

[ ]

Back to list

(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, as a result of my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request seen the reports held by the police on its systems - for 2002, 2003 and 2007 - and its 'Get lost!' replies to my request for amendments - as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 - my assessment was correct... leaving me, as it stands (in addition to the courts): with no avenue for justice and redress

(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 as, 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."

Why is it that landlords and their aides are free to terrorise leaseholders?

(The Evening Standard article of 3 December 2003 , headed "Left homeless for £25 " (US$44) reports that a leaseholder had a similar experience to mine (NB: The article refers to my case):

"neither the police nor Hastings borough council will act" )

Answer: because they are regarded as 'sacrosanct' ! (It is a very powerful clan: 'Who owns Britain?' ; the 'Great Estates' ; examples of new entrants - the 'ruling class' - with far reaching tentacles - see extracts from a speech by an MP to the House of Commons: John Prescott, point # 7

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.

Off-the-record, a member of Parliament told me "the leasehold system is a licence to print money" .

Personally, the outcome of my very traumatic, horrendous nightmare experience since 2002 leads me to describe the residential leasehold system as a government assisted form of terrorism and mental torture.

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 is also being interfered with...

...- 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

(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

In 2003 Kensington police was widely reported in the media as having spent Pounds 5-7 million (US$8.8-12.4 million) of taxpayers' money investigating one of its own. (NB: All the highlights in the extracts from the press articles are mine)

The net result of this massive expenditure was an admission that

"[the Officer under investigation] ...may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700) "

The following are extracts from two of the many press articles at the time (Both articles were long)

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)

 

This is how far Kensington police et. al. are prepared to go - at the taxpayers' expense

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 police is symptomatic of the state of the police force: OUT OF CONTROL

While my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police demonstrates that this station 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):

— As a journalist wrote in The Independent of 30 Nov 08 "The police are a law unto themselves"

— 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"

"...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".

(1) ACPO = Association of Chief Police Officers. From the Mail on Sunday, 15 Feb09, 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, nor is it a police trade union or even a campaign group. It is a private company...paid millions of pounds a year by the taxpayer to effectively run the nation's police forces..."

"...Because ACPO is a private company, members of the public cannot use the Freedom of Information Act to scrutinise its operations. Last night it came under fire from politicians and human rights lawyers, who called for its immediate reform...It also employs a number of high-ranking police officers on lucrative short-term contracts" (NB !!!)

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" ( NB: If MPs find the time after filing their expenses!)

(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) (See My Diary 2 Aug 06 for media reports of 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 meaningless - see point # 5, my experience with the IPCC)

The Mail on Sunday, 15 Mar 09, published an article by Brian Paddick, a former Metropolitan Police Commander, headed, "Criminals in the police? I've met plenty of them". He states "I can't say I was surprised when the Liberal Democrats last week revealed that more than 1,000 serving British police officers have criminal convictions for offences including violence, theft and perverting the course of justice".

Wow! Considering the typical public sector of response of immediately closing of rank and mutual exoneration (and my experience, point # 5): these offences must have been very serious. Consider that these police officers could testify against you, or I, in court. UNBELIEVABLE! This, added to everything else that is taking place (House of Lords # 1 and # 2, House of Commons, quangos, the courts e.g. My Diary 11 Nov 08 , 30 Jan 09, etc) means anarchy...

...- a situation anticipated by Lord Denning in his book "What next in the law?" who wrote “Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy”

(In the feedback section, one of the readers criticised Mr Paddick for only saying this now that he is out of the police. Considering what Mr Paddick wrote in the article, as well as my experience and that of whistleblowers, I say, with all due respect to this Reader: Get real! At least, Mr Paddick had the guts to say it now. I command him for his courage. As can be seen on the Home Page-Overview, I know what it takes to put your head above the parapet (and so do others who have done it).

— Judging from media reports, some members of the police force are busy doing the same thing by using their American Express card as an endless cash dispenser for their personal use e.g. charging: a breast implant operation; women's clothing; fishing rod. These examples were revealed in June 2009, but the abuse was first highlighted two years previously e.g. The Guardian, 12 Nov 07, "Met police inquiry into unexplained £2m expense spending". (The amount appears to have gone up since). ('Some' prosecutions 'appear' to be taking place e.g. comments by the IPCC Chair, Nick Hardwick, in the 13 Feb 10 article by The Independent, "Root out corrupt officers, police told") (NB: Meaningless words - see point # 5, my experience with the IPCC)

— The Sunday Times’ article of 1 Mar 09 “We have all been made criminals” , in which it quotes the former MI5 Chief, Dame Stella Rimington “We now have more to fear from our police state than from terrorism”. The same article states that we are “sliding into a police state… A decade ago the police could arrest us only for serious crimes. Now they can arrest us for anything”. VERY TRUE e.g.

  • Scotland Yard's Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) which has "the power to detain suspects indefinitely in secure psychiatric units without evidence and very little right of appeal". "A team of psychiatrists and psychologists have the power to order treatment". In light of my experience with some English medical practitioners (My Diary 2009 - Intro-Medical # 1, # 2 and # 3) as well as e.g. media reports about the 'Lockerbie bomber', I find this truly frightening.

Add to this the very scary powers granted to the police by New Labour (My Diary 13 Apr 08)

Seeing all of this, added to my comprehensive very first-hand experience, leads me to the conclusion that this country has become a police state in which anybody who 'dares' to stand-up and expose any wrongdoings by the State, the Government, Establishment, the 'ruling elite' is immediately targeted and 'taught a lesson' for 'daring to step out of line' .

Meanwhile, as many people are saying since the 2008-09 scandals (My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09): those with the duty to do something about it, are too busy lining their pockets.

With such systemic criminality, it is easy to understand the spread and depth of support to Andrew Ladsky et. al in their criminal activities = PARADISE for vermin like him and his stable of puppets.

It is so, so sad to see this previously wonderful country reduced to this very sorry state.

But, a bit of good news: In its 24 May 10 issue, the Yorkshire Post has an article "Shamed: 40 Yorkshire police staff sacked for crime and misconduct". The sackings are reported to have taken place at West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Hamberside Police. Looking at the offences that have led them to being sacked, I can think of quite a few in Kensington police who should DEFINITELY be sacked - starting with Mark Heath, Borough Commander, for acting as a fertiliser for malpractice (point # 5). But, considering the outcome of relating my experience to the Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson (point # 5), he evidently does not share my view. A visit to the Yorkshire police forces 'might' enlighten him. Perhaps the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, could suggest that to him.

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA POLICE AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. AND KENSINGTON & CHELSEA POLICE, THE PUBLIC ACCESS OFFICE, THE DIRECTORATE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, THE METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER AND THE 'INDEPENDENT' POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION - ALL COMPRISED UNDER THE HOME OFFICE - ARE CAUSING ME TO MAINTAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN   DOING .

Back to top