Translate

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Grandfather Brian Pead a Child Abuse whistle-blower arrested again by a corrupt criminal justice system which protects paedophiles


Since we published  his heart rending  story Brian Pead   the brave whistle-blower who exposed child abuse in Lambeth   has been arrested yet again by the Police

 In a step by step guide to this shocking  injustice we find the full story   and  Upadate  on Brian Pead's persecution and harrasment    from Barnes Blogspot   read more  barnes1215.blogspot.com/2013/03/brian-pead-arrested-again.html

Unlawful arrest of Brian Pead
Friday, 15 March 2013.
Southend Police Station, Essex
Time: 20:35
Arresting Officer: APS Harper [71035]
Reason for Arrest: Failing to Provide Essex Police with Contact Details


On his dead brother’s 62nd birthday, Brian Pead was arrested [15th March]. He spent the night in the cells on his late father’s birthday [16th March], so his detention came at a critical period on Brian’s calendar and spanned the birthdays of two important people in his life.

At 8pm, Brian attended Southend Police Station with Michael Bird, co-author of from Hillsborough to Lambeth, a book exposing child abuse, racism and corruption at Lambeth Council.

They had gone to report trespass, harassment and assault by two officers from Essex Police on Brian’s 75yr-old female neighbour. The Police had called on her, but she told them to go away. Instead, they pushed past her and unlawfully trespassed on her property. She was reduced to tears.

This is not the first time Essex Police have done this, either.

So, the two men went to Southend Police Station to report these crimes against an innocent, law-abiding neighbour. They were prepared to make statements, jointly and severally.

After a 20-minute wait, they were ushered into a room off the main foyer. As they stepped inside the room, believing they were going to make a statement, the door was locked behind them.

A police officer said he was going to arrest Brian for failing to notify the Police of his address on 11 January 2013. Michael Bird said, “You can’t arrest him. He is innocent of the crime you allege. I am prepared to make a statement to that effect. You must let him go.”

As a registered sex offender (he isn’t but they love to claim he is as they play their game of Disinformation), he is obliged to inform his local police station of his whereabouts.

On two occasions in January both Michael and Brian went to Southend Police Station and Brian provided his details. As he always does, he got a time and date-stamped receipt for his visit.

On 10 January 2013, they sent a letter (and a copy of their book to Mr Jim Barker-McCardle, the Chief Constable of Essex. The letter had Brian’s address on it … so the Police DID have his address within the required date. And not just any old police, but the Chief Constable, no less!)

Acting Police Sergeant Harper insisted on arresting Brian (at 20:35). Mr Pead told APS Harper that he had no right to arrest him, that he had no genuine belief that Brian had committed a crime and that he must under no circumstances touch him. He also told him that he did not consent to being policed. In fairness to APS Harper, he did not lay a finger on Brian, nor even attempt such a manoeuvre.

Michael Bird repeated his statement that Brian could not be guilty because he had been with Brian on both occasions when he had provided his address and bank account details to the police.

This is what APS Harper said: “But the computer says you have committed a crime, so I must arrest you.”

It’s official – policing by computer!

Brian asked for the reasons for his arrest: “…To prevent any investigation being hindered by Essex Police not being able to locate you. Also to allow the prompt and efficient investigation to allow us to obtain evidence by questioning…”

If that were true, then all they had to do was speak to Michael Bird who was prepared to make a statement proving Brian’s innocence on the spot.

So, off they led Brian to the Custody Suite and Michael Bird went home to start calling supporters of Brian, of free speech and of justice.

Brian was duly processed. In the Custody Suite, which is monitored with CCTV and audio, Brian informed the officers that:

(i) he is not a sex offender and the legislation proves it (he referred them to Archbold)
(ii) that he is actually exposing such activity in the book co-authored with the very same Michael Bird who attended the police station with Brian
(iii) that his book has been banned
(iv) that he has videos on Youtube explaining his predicament
(v) that they might like to visit lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com and make some genuine arrests of genuine sex offenders.

They appeared not to be listening, so, for the benefit of the tape recordings, he repeated his statements.

Duly processed, they removed him to Cell 17. He asked for his reading glasses, but wasn’t allowed them.

Under PACE regulations he asked for a paper and pencil, but he wasn’t allowed them.

He asked for a solicitor, but only knew of one in Southend (Jerman, Samuels and Pearson Solicitors, known locally as JSPS). Here is a link to the Directors of this company.

Whilst waiting for the solicitor, Brian then met with the Medical Officer. This was a new departure and had not occurred when he was processed on 1 February 2012 for a similar alleged offence.

The paramedic, name of Steve, was about Brian’s age. He was a decent enough chap. He asked Brian to sign a consent form for his medical records. Brian was not going to sign anything without reading it first and he had no glasses.

The glasses were obtained. Brian read the form and was not happy with it. He said he would only sign it if he added his own comments. He added: “I do not consent to this process or this form” and signed the form (so that they could not say he was not co-operating).

Then, Steve turned over the tri-fold document and revealed that on the front cover it read “The solicitor has told us that there are underlying mental health issues”.

Brian had not seen this front page when signing it.

You can probably see where they were hoping to go with that little trick, but Brian had already stated that he did not consent to the Form.

Brian does not have “underlying mental issues” – though the authorities will always try this with an ‘enemy’. It’s an easy option for them. Pay a couple of doctors to pronounce that a person needs to be Sectioned and before long they’re in a secure unit. There is much about this on the Internet, especially on YouTube.

But Steve had turned out to be a decent chap. He put himself at some risk by showing Brian the first page. He had worked out that Brian was far from having mental health issues. The two men – in a very short space of time – had “sussed one another out” and understood one another on an elementary level.

At around 11pm, a Jane Werry arrived from JSPS in a hoody and tracksuit bottoms. Without a business card (“I forgot them”). Hmmm. Not a good start and highly unprofessional.

Here is her profile on the JSPS website.

It might be worth noting her credentials. Or lack of them in order to deal effectively with Brian's situation.

Brian is a highly experienced therapist. His first encounter with any new person provides him with a great deal of information. He believed that this was not a woman to be trusted. (This is not in any way defamatory - it is merely his opinion. Readers are free to arrive at their own conclusions based on the information provided.)

Brian informed her that he is not a sex offender. She didn’t listen.

He told her that he couldn’t possibly be guilty of the crime for which he been arrested earlier that day because he had provided the police with his details in any event and he had an alibi – co-author Michael Bird was with him when he attended the police station to inform them of his details and he was also with him on this night and was willing to make a statement to police to this effect.

She did not want to listen to this, either. Which is pretty strange.

“I’m paying you, actually,” said Brian, “so I would like you to take my instructions.”

“You’re not paying me,” she retorted, smugly, “the Government is. You’re on Legal Aid.”

She had obviously not heard that Brian has paid his taxes for almost 40 years and his National Insurance for the same period.

“Well, I am deeply concerned about your comments,” added Brian.

Brian studied her face. It was the face of a naughty child who had been caught out, but wasn’t sure, and so had to ask.

“What comments?”

“Where you informed the Police that I have underlying mental health issues. I don’t have any.”

“I never said that.”

“In that case, go and get the Desk Sergeant and I’ll ask him whether you told him that or whether he made it up himself.”

“I’m withdrawing from representing you. You’ll have to get another solicitor.”

“From your firm?”

“No, I represent my firm.”

[In that case, if you were my employee I’d dismiss you for such conduct in a police station, thought Brian.]

She could not scurry away fast enough. She has probably not met the likes of Brian Pead before. [He will be following that incident up with an official complaint in several quarters.]

Brian was led back to his cell.

The civilian officer in charge of the cells was a decent enough fellow. He asked Brian who he should call next.

Tooks Chambers, Farringdon Street. The chambers of Michael Mansfield. He has been sent a copy of the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth.”

So off the nice chap went to call Tooks Chambers.

“They say they have never heard of you. They told me to tell you to try elsewhere.”

“OK, try Pamela Brain of 1 Inner Temple Lane.”

Pamela Brain was a barrister who originally represented Brian at Woolwich Crown Court on a charge of Exposure (he was innocent.)

She then witnessed the Trial at Woolwich collapse because the three females alleging Exposure failed to turn up at Court. The Judge was told that the Police had forgotten to inform them. (Read more about that farce in the forthcoming book For Whom the Bell Tolled.)

The nice chap returned.

“They can’t help either. The problem you’re having is you’re giving me the names of barristers’ chambers, not solicitors.”

Brian knew this, of course, but he wanted this process recorded: that Tooks failed to assist and that One Inner Temple failed to assist.

“What options am I left with, my friend?”

“Well, I’ll just have to go to the Call

“Fine,” said Brian, “let's do that.”

He knows that it is a lottery. The quality of Duty Solicitors varies widely.

The Desk Sergeant, Steve May, then arrived in Brian’s cell (uninvited) and said, “We have reviewed all of the paperwork and you’ll be out of here tonight. We have no intention of keeping you here tonight” which Brian took for “Police-speak” as “Hard luck son, you ain’t going nowhere tonight.”

The 6ft5½tall sergeant (Brian asked him) smiled, turned on his heels and went home, his shift over.

And so it turned out that Brian’s assessment of the situation had been correct.

Brian woke around 7am and asked for a shower and to clean his teeth.

About an hour later, his requests were granted. He was surprised at how fluffy the towels were!

Feeling alert and refreshed, he requested some reading materials, some paper and a pencil. His wishes were granted.
Two magazines about gadgets were given to him which is probably about the worst possible reading material to give him since Brian has no interest in gadgets, but nonetheless the Cells Officer had done his best.

Brian set about recording the events of the previous evening in great detail.

Then he ate two Cereal bars.

Then a Solicitor arrived, a young man from an Essex and Suffolk firm of solicitors called Taylor Haldane Barlex that Brian had not heard of before, or he would have remembered such unusual names (he has a thing for language).

The young man looked about 20 but was about 28-30. He was actually a decent chap and named Paul Markham, who looked nothing like he does in this photo.

After providing his full details, Brian informed him that he wished to make a “No Comment” interview because the police had been given sufficient information the previous night (by both Brian and Michael Bird) that proved Brian’s innocence.

Paul Markham suggested otherwise. Having heard all of the facts, Mr Markham suggested to Brian that he merely “…reiterate the facts to the officers in order to ‘advance your defence’. By all means refuse to answer any tangential questions. It seems there was no good reason for your arrest and detention…”

So an interview was arranged for Interview Room 1. This room has no table. The interviewing officers were PC Coombes (75378) and PC Wilson (74214).

Brian has been arrested every year since 2008. Sometimes twice on the same day!. He is used to all types of combinations of interviewing officers. The good cop-bad cop routine is old news to him.
But here he had good cop-good cop. This routine was new to him!

The interview commenced at 09:42. This was his late father’s birthday. Thus the entire arrest, incarceration and interview had spanned the birthdays of his late brother (Robert) and his late father (Frederick). This was, in a strange quirk of fate, rather appropriate, since it was his late brother's death on board a Lowestoft trawler in 1972 that led Brian to give up his day job at the time and find work as a trawlerman as a callow 19 year old in order to investigate (under cover) his brother's death.
And it was Brian's late father who repeatedly told Brian that “if you give 'em enough rope, they'll hang themselves.”

Both men played an important part in Brian's life for very different reasons, but they came to mind throughout his time in the police station.

The interview was textbook stuff.

The interview ended at 10:13.

The two officers had conducted themselves impeccably.

During the debrief, Paul Markham told his client: “It went well. There were no issues. I hope it goes nowhere. You gave a good account of yourself. Even if they did charge you, bail should not be an issue. Hopefully there will be No Further Action.”

And so back to the cells. To await the decision. The Police would consult with the CPS who would make a decision whether prosecuting Brian Pead would be in the public interest. (This is always the standard by which cases are judged … yet Brian had been on the wrong end of ridiculous decisions on too many occasions to take anything for granted.)

Then he was called for fingerprinting. He had informed the Desk Sergeant (Steve May – the gentle giant) the previous evening that he did give his consent to being finger-printed or to have his photograph taken or to have a DNA sample taken. (All of this is on the PNC in any event.)

It appears that the Police do not understand the phrase “I do not give my consent.” They appear to believe that this means you are refusing. It does not. It merely means that you do not consent to them taking your fingerprints etc. Since the option is being forced by 6 burly coppers to have your prints taken, Brian Pead chose instead to comply with their instructions, but still refused to give his consent.
The civilian taking his prints was a decent chap. He had joined the Police as a cadet, but so far had failed to be accepted as a police officer. But at least he had not given up. He was still chasing his
dream and Brian respected that.

Back to the cells after finger-printing.

Shortly afterwards, at around midday, Brian was released.

Desk Sergeant Price provided Brian Pead with a NOTIFICATION OF NO FURTHER ACTION sheet. The box which stated “There is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” was ticked.

It didn’t actually say that Brian was innocent. Michael Bird had not been required to make a statement.

Before he left the station, an officer spoke to Pead. “It’s clear from evidence that you are an innocent man and the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but you have to comply with the Court Order, even if it’s wrong.”

For reasons of confidentiality, Brian Pead will not reveal the name of that police officer, who did not have to say what he said. So he commanded Brian's respect – which is hard to earn in any event.
Officer Coombes asked Brian if he wanted to have a lift home. Although he lives a 5-minute walk from the police station, he asked for a lift.

Brian then had to go to the Front desk to provide his official details “on the correct form”. Brian had been arrested because he hadn’t provided Essex Police with his details on the correct form, even though the form is computer generated within the police station! So, short of going into the back office of the police station, it’s impossible to comply with such a request.

However, the form Brian Pead was given to sign contained several errors. It claimed that his offence was “Causing or Inciting a Girl Under 13 to Engadge in Sexual Activity” (their spelling mistake).
Brian has never done this. He has never been charged with this. He has never been on trial for this.

Then the form claimed he was convicted of this offence on 22 November 2011.

This date is incorrect in any event. He was never on Trial at that time.

The form stated that Brian was given a 3-month suspended sentence. This is also incorrect.

Brian signed the form “ I AM NOT A SEX OFFENDER. SOME DETAILS ON THIS FORM ARE WRONG.)

Brian informed the desk operative that details were wrong. He merely shrugged.

However, not a single officer asked Brian (or Michael Bird) to complete their original reason for going to the police station – trespass, harassment and assault of a frail 75 year old neighbour.



This form of harrament by the Police is designed to waer thier  tartget down and precipitate mental problems. Obviously the older  and more vulnerable their target the more damaging the torture,

A reader has told us the Brian Pead is due in the Royal Courts of Injustice, where judges are bought and sold for large sums,  on 27 March 2013.

The case is at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London. (Nearest tube station, Temple). It is likely to be heard in Court 14 by Judge Tugendhat.  The case is for alleged Contempt of Court following his alleged refusal to comply with an unlawful Court Order banning his latest book.

It is warned for  around  10am , but just  increase the stress the Court does not given an exact time.

If   you can attend to support   Brian Paed  please do. 

Brian is fighting  for Justice  and freedom for eveyone. 







10 comments:

  1. WHAT DISGUSTING TREATMENT THAT POOR MAN HAS HAD 2 ENDURE.I hope people will turn up in sufficient numbers 2 support Brian on 27th March. We all need 2 support someone who is being treated in this shameful way, good luck Brian

    ReplyDelete
  2. The highlight of this story for me was the bit where he needs a solicitor and gets them to waste their time ringing the chambers of Michael Mansfield (not a solicitor), then Pamela Brain (also not a solicitor).

    Then when he's informed that they can't be his appointed solicitor because they aren't solicitors we're informed that "Brian knew this, of course" (of course!), but he still wants it on record that some people who aren't solicitors refused to pretend they were!

    There are two sides to any story, but just from reading your own account it's readily apparent that "underlying mental problems" is putting it mildly.

    I also love the idea that when he reads that a case will be heard at RCJ "not before 10am" they're not giving an exact time "just to increase the stress". Yes that must be the explanation. It's definitely not that the hearing before yours starts at 9am and is estimated for about an hour.

    Search this page for the phrase "not before" and you'll get hundreds of matches:
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-cause-rcj

    When you look at the order of play at Wimbledon tennis, do you think that the reason they don't state when the second match on Centre Court will start is:

    a. because they want to "increase the stress"?, or
    b. because they don't know how long the match before will take?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely agree with you

      Delete
  3. Why, you sound like a lawyer yourself, Anonymous! Regardless, Mr. Pead has an ever-growing band of supporters on the 'net (and twitter) who can work it out for themselves exactly with whom the fault lies in this case. Good day to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree with you Liz the guy is a jerk

      Delete
  4. No Liz, I'm not a lawyer. Yesterday was the first I'd heard of Brian and his story. I'm generally distrusting of the police and was quite interested to read a story of police mistreatment of an innocent member of the public, but for Brian's sake someone needs to tell you that that is not the impression someone new to this case would understand from reading the account above.

    On reflection I don't think it was appropriate to adopt the flippant tone I used yesterday, and I apologise for that. It's clearly not a joking matter. But that was my first impression on reading the account. It reads like the paranoia of someone with mental health issues. Please don't shoot the messenger for pointing that out.

    Anyone with an ounce of common sense (or failing that 30 seconds time to look at the Royal Courts of Justice list of today's cases) would realise that if you're not on first your case gets heard only when the previous one finishes. To interpret that plain fact as some deliberate tactic on behalf of the Court to make him stressed is clinical paranoia. There's no other description for it.

    What about the Michael Mansfield/Took Chambers bit? If Brian has never been a client of his (and he isn't a solicitor), how on earth could a sane person conclude that just sending him a copy of a book (that he won't have had time to read) means that he has some obligation to help Brian? Anyone rational who reads that would think that Brian is bonkers.

    Writing that he'll be up in the "Royal Courts of Injustice, where judges are bought and sold for large sums" is just madness. If the judge reads that (or has it drawn to his attention by the other side) then Brian is toast.

    From what I've read Brian's situation is really serious. It's a court case, not X-Factor - if the judge rules in his favour it will be because of the facts and the law, not because he's got supporters heckling from the public gallery. The last thing he needs is a bunch of "supporters" (however well-meaning) telling him what he wants to hear. What he really needs is a real friend with some common sense telling him the truth, even if he doesn't want to hear it, and advising him to drop all the paranoid stuff that can only damage his case. Like you said, he's evidently got a growing band of hangers on, but if there's someone giving him good advice I haven't seen it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a criminal defence solicitor I feel deeply sorry for people like Brian caught up in a system without compassion . Whilst your criticism has some validity it merely demonstrates how difficult it is for the average man to navigate through the legal system without expert and sympathetic help.
      Cases are often decided before being heard and it is unrealistic to believe that the UK justice system is textbook fair. It is not and has steadily deteriorated.
      The criminal justice system has always led to miscarriages of justice because of bias towards the prosecution and in civil matters bias towards big business. Now with the disparity in the funding between of the defence and the prosecution because of unfair restrictions in Legal Aid Defendants are seriously disadvantaged.
      This disparity usually leads to very real and perceived injustice.





      Delete
    2. Judges are not supposed to be influenced by what the press write let alone what bloggers write. I love this blog but even with a good following it has a limited distribution and is not being read by High Court Judges.

      It is pure stupidity to say that if the Judge reads this blog Brian will be toast or that the other side are likely to draw the judges attention to this blog.

      It sounds like Mr Anonymous is actually on the other side and is talking out of his black hat

      Delete
    3. I understand the instinct to shoot the messenger if you don't like the message, but please give it a little thought. If I was "on the other side" I wouldn't post anything here, because *here* isn't where anything will be won or lost. I would be saving everything for the hearing, and making sure I gave Brian no warning or chance to be prepared. Could I respectfully suggest you haven't really thought that through?

      I'm sorry that the context of what I wrote was lost on you. You are 100% correct that judges aren't supposed to allow themselves to be influenced by what it written in the press or online, but then they aren't supposed to be "bought and sold for large sums" either! I'm struggling to see how anyone could conclude that judges are corrupt, yet strictly refuse to allow anything written online to influence them.

      Of course I could be wrong, but the article doesn't read like a third party report. Most of it is intimate detail only Mr. Pead could know. It reads like Mr. Pead's account of what happened to him, but written in a slightly creepy third party prose. That's why I assumed the catchy phrase "Royal Courts of Injustice, where judges are bought and sold for large sums" wasn't just a random phrase on a random blog, but the ill-judged words of Mr. Pead himself. If I'm wrong about that I stand corrected, but without clarification that's just how it reads.

      If the judge thinks some random blogger has suggested High Court judges are bent then obviously that's neither here nor there. If he thinks it is a view expressed by the defendant then surely you'd agree that's a somewhat different proposition. Either way it's a really stupid thing to write - there's no upside and it can only be unhelpful.

      Anyway feel free to ignore all my comments, the constructive ones as well as the flippant. It's somewhat pointless trying to reason with people convinced their approach is flawless even when results would suggest the contrary. If it makes you feel better, fire another hundred rounds into the messenger, but don't kid yourselves that it's doing Brian any favours.

      Delete
  5. I went to a school that Brian Pead used to teach at. He had at least one relationship with one of my friends when we were 15. He very nearly got caught out back then but somehow managed to avoid getting into trouble as the mother did not press charges even though there was plenty of evidence against him. I have no doubt he is a sex offender and it is good to know he finally got caught. Everyone thought he was a weirdo. He had a child with the wife of his brother who died - I'm sure he's really cut up about his birthday. Not!

    ReplyDelete

We welcome all points of view but do not publish malicious comments. We would love to hear from you if you want to e-mail us with tips, information or just chat e-mail talkingtous@hotmail.co.uk