Sunday, 20 May 2018

Victims Right to Review

Hands up if you've ever attempted to have a CPS decision overturned but failed miserably because everything that was in the right to review file was lies and the CPS knew it to be so.

Oh how she laughed the day after my arrest. Oh what fun days they were.

Friday, 18 May 2018

Mouth of the South

Quick update on the mouth of the south. She's raised $5 or £3.71 in the past week. That's a total of £88.95 for the past month. If ever there was evidence required of a complete and utter failure as a journalist then this is it. She'll know by now what we've all known for the past 5 years or so-that she's a fruitcake and a total failure who attempts to raise public funding has well and truly landed on it's big fat arse. 

Image result for sonia.poulton

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Former MP Harvey Proctor is to call Theresa May

Former MP Harvey Proctor is to call Theresa May as witness in his High Court battle with the Metropolitan Police

Tuesday 15th May 2018 - Love Sport radio the former Conservative MP Harvey Proctor who is suing the Metropolitan Police and the fantasist dubbed 'Nick', who falsely accused him of murder and child rape.

During the interview, Harvey exclusively revealed to Love Sport Radio that he would call Theresa May (Prime Minister) as a witness due to comments she made on The Marr show in November 2014.

At the time of Theresa May's appearance on The Andrew Marr show, she was Home Secretary.


ANDREW MARR: …you’ve raised it in the Commons yourself – that there was a cover-up involving the abuse and murder possibly of young boys by a group of people, including senior politicians and Conservative politicians.

THERESA MAY: There’s a real issue here, about how was it that in the past but continuing today the very institutions of the state that should be protecting children were not doing so. Why was it that these abuses were able to take place and that nobody was brought to justice as a result of that? We must as a society, I believe, get to the truth of that …

THERESA MAY: … because I think what we’re seeing is frankly, what we’ve already seen revealed is only the tip of the iceberg on this issue.

"Tip of the iceberg" statement by Home Secretary was premeditated and prejudicial to Operation Midland.

“I wish to know who briefed her to say on the Andrew Marr programme: ‘It’s the tip of the iceberg’ when we have discovered, it wasn’t even the tip of an ice cube.”

Mr Proctor believes because the Home Secretary Theresa May clearly endorsed the idea that abuse had taken place he was subjected to public humiliation. He wants to know :

- Who briefed her?
- Where her statement came from?
- Is she truly sorry for the torture that he had been put through?
- Did all this influence her decision not to attend Lord Brittan's Funeral?
Proctor added “I want Theresa May to be a witness at the High Court and be held accountable for what she said..”

The Metropolitan Police to date has entered into a private settlement with Lord Brittan’s widow and Lord Brammal but not with Harvey Proctor who has had to seek funds from friends in order to start the legal battle.

Harvey Proctor

Harvey Proctor (born 16 January 1947) is a British former Conservative Member of Parliament.[1] A member of the Monday Club, he represented Basildon from 1979 to 1983 and Billericay from 1983 to 1987.
On 4 March 2015, Proctor's home, on the Belvoir estate, was searched by the Metropolitan Police as part of the Operation Midland investigation into allegations of historical child sexual abuse and related homicides. Proctor denied any wrongdoing in an interview with the Today programme.[8] He retired from his job with the Duke and Duchess of Rutland on 25 March 2015, "with immediate effect".[9]
On 21 March 2016, Proctor was told that he would face no further action.

From here

Friday, 11 May 2018

Perverting the Course of Justice

Tick Tock, I don't read the Mail or any other rag but I will be tomorrow.

Binned from the IICSA

On behalf of Esther Baker, it was submitted that the allegations which she has made
should form part of the Westminster investigation. Ms Baker alleges that she was
sexually assaulted by her father and by persons of public prominence associated with
Westminster and that there were institutional failings in connection with that alleged
abuse by police and law enforcement services. She says that her father introduced
her to a paedophile ring which included persons of public prominence associated with
Westminster. She also says that she was abused from the age of 8 to around age 12
and that the abuse was organised and sometimes ritualistic, that it was filmed, and that
the police acted in a security role. She says that at various times she tried to report the
abuse but was not believed, or the complaints were not effectively dealt with by the
authorities, and as such there were institutional failings.

Esther Baker

I have decided that the Inquiry will not investigate the issues that Ms Baker has raised
that relate to her own alleged experiences of child sexual abuse. I do of course have a
very broad discretion in determining which issues will and will not be investigated by
the Inquiry. I accept the submissions made by Counsel to the Inquiry that
considerations of proportionality are of great importance in this regard, in particular
given the wide scope of this investigation and the limits to the time and resources that
the Inquiry is able to devote to it.

Ms Baker’s allegations are highly contentious. They are the subject of both contested
civil proceedings and an ongoing police investigation. I am also aware that Mr
Hemming is reported to have made a complaint to the CPS that the allegations that Ms
Baker has made about him amount to perverting the course of justice. The fact that
both the police investigation and the civil proceedings are ongoing is a factor that
weighs strongly against the Inquiry attempting to investigate these matters. Even if it
were appropriate for the Inquiry to investigate these matters before the conclusion of
the other proceedings, such an investigation would be extremely resource intensive
and would be likely to distract the Inquiry’s attention from the six core issues set out
above. Those issues all concern general questions as to institutional responses to
child sexual abuse, and I accept Counsel to the Inquiry’s submissions that it is on such
institutional matters that the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference require it to focus. Ms
Baker’s primary concern, as I apprehend it, is that the Inquiry should adduce evidence
about and make findings of fact that go to the truth or otherwise of her allegations of
having been the victim of child sexual abuse. That is to misunderstand the Inquiry’s
function, which, as Counsel to the Inquiry submitted, is to investigate institutional
failings, and not to determine disputed facts on individual cases, and that is a further
reason why I have decided to reject the submissions made on behalf of Ms Baker.

I would add that I have considered whether it might be appropriate to investigate the
allegations that Ms Baker has made of institutional failings (for example, the police’s
alleged failure to investigate her claims properly) without also investigating the details
of her underlying claims of having suffered child sexual abuse. Although that is an
approach that the Inquiry is taking in other cases, I do not think that it is practical here.
In Ms Baker’s case, the issues of potential institutional failings are very closely bound
up with her underlying allegations of abuse. It would not be practical or proportionate
to attempt to separate one from the other.

The submissions made on behalf of Ms Baker also referred to events outside the
United Kingdom allegedly involving child sexual abuse and invited the Inquiry to
consider these as part of the Westminster investigation. In summary, Ms Baker says
that as a child she visited a foreign country and stayed at the house of a relative of a
person of public prominence associated with Westminster where she was shown a
room full of young girls and was sexually assaulted by her host. She alleges that her
parents worked with orphanages in the country concerned, in conjunction with her
host, and she assumes that visits by politicians and others in a position of power both
in the past and to the present day have involved the abuse of young children. On
behalf of Ms Baker it is submitted that investigation of the links between Westminster
and the foreign country can be conducted if her allegations are considered as part of
the scope of the investigation.

The focus of this investigation is on how Westminster institutions responded to
allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is not intended that the
Westminster investigation should consider matters outside the United Kingdom. The
Inquiry’s Terms of Reference relate to institutional failings in England and Wales, and
the Inquiry has a separate investigation which is examining the extent to which
institutions and organisations in England and Wales have taken seriously their
responsibility to protect children outside the United Kingdom from sexual abuse.
Accordingly the Westminster investigation will not consider these matters, but will
focus as explained on alleged institutional failings within England and Wales
connected with Westminster.
Kicked out

And while we're on the subject of false allegations here's the other one. She's begging for money AGAIN. Only this time reality has kicked in and she can't even raise a £100 in 3 weeks, pmsl. £92.12 speaks volumes, don't you think? She could always try the lottery...............................roflmho

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

David (me) vs Goliath (Scott Trust Limited)

This was supposed to be a 2min update but it would have been impossible to cover it in such a small timescale. I'm trying to convey 24 years in as short a time as I can. More detail is available here. I'm of the mind that a crime has been committed. I haven't yet reported it because the police and CPS are also involved. The same police and CPS who prosecuted me for a chance encounter with a toothless monkey (internet troll in the pay of the police). The same police and CPS who had me knicked for contempt of court without any evidence apart from some notes I took. The same police and CPS who've been hell-bent on locking me up for something, anything. The same CPS and police who raided one of my defence witnesses homes as a result of him publicly supporting me. The same police and CPS who covered up for Gordon Anglesea for the same period of time, 24 years. The article was on the same page as the one that accused Anglesea of abusing boys at Bryn Estyn (something he was never convicted of) The same police and CPS who found time to send officers from all over the UK to descend upon my family home whilst dressed in riot gear. The same police and CPS who faked a computer analyst report to try and convict of crimes that have never happened. The same police and CPS that sent officers to try and PIN me on behalf of the Wilmers. The same police and CPS who have failed in their duty for as long as I can remember. The same police and CPS who have arrested me 7 times in the past 5 years. The same police and CPS who applied to the court to allow them to introduce bad character evidence which included a fine for smoking on a train.

So if anyone can recommend a police force in the UK that might be worth reporting to let us know. 

Tuesday, 8 May 2018


Fat arse Tom Watson may finally be outed as the cause of the VIP sexual abuse scandal. Will he take a bullet for those who supplied him with the lies or not? Doubtful as he's a politician. 

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

A Crime is a crime is a crime

I've been taking advice from legal eagles.

1.The actions of the Readers Editor of the Observer have been found to have breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Despite an appeal by the Guardian, the ICO still ruled that they had breached the DPA 1998.

2. A document that Stephen Pritchard forwarded to a prosecution witness in my case had been contested and challenged for some 10 months prior to Pritchard sharing it. Ergo, he knew the contents had been challenged and part of that challenge was my assertion that it had been fabricated by someone. Why on God's earth would he share it knowing that I had claimed it was a fake. Why indeed? Maybe to pervert the course of justice? All the signs are there to suggest it was for exactly this reason.

3. Additionally, Pritchard's claim that the document was a legal affidavit fell on its face when it was compared to a bonafide legal affidavit. For example, any legal affidavit would probably have the date it was made on it somewhere. Not in this case, the document is undated. Not only that but throughout the pages, there are corrections and other scrawls that don't have any initials next to them. A real legal affidavit it is not.

4. Despite the offer of damages running into the thousands of pounds and a letter of regret the Guardian still refuse to disclose the origins of the document. They also refuse to acknowledge that the document is still out there and could be shared at any time to anyone. I have no way of knowing if it is already out there online.

5. Now, if you or I had behaved in such a manner, what do you think the consequences would be? If you or I had a tendency to pervert or had intended to knowingly pervert the course of public justice, do you think we would have been prosecuted? I think we would be facing a prison sentence should we be convicted. And rightly so.

6. Is there press immunity from prosecution? It would seem that thus far, justice has yet to be meted out to some who deserve it. Additionally, because the Guardian repeatedly refuse to accept what's staring them right in their faces and continue to act like an ostrich; Are they not as guilty as the man they employ and continue to support by denying me the right to clear my name? I doubt the readers would disagree with me.

7. As for any future legal action, I have been assured by the Guardian's lawyers that I will be liable for all their costs, interest included. But, only if I lose. Charles Prestwich Scott wouldn't recognise any of those involved in this saga as anyone who shares his values.

The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community. From here

Judge for yourselves using the CPS guidance.
I'll update this entry as time passes.

Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences
The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged. Consider whether the conduct:

Perverting the Course of Justice

was spontaneous and unplanned or deliberate and elaborately planned;
was momentary and irresolute or prolonged and determined;
was motivated by misplaced loyalty to a relative/friend or was part of a concerted effort to avoid, pervert, or defeat justice;
was intended to result in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice;
actually resulted in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice.

Examples of 'serious harm' include conduct which:
enables a potential defendant in a serious case to evade arrest or commit further offences;
causes an accused to be granted bail when he might otherwise not have;
avoids a police investigation for disqualified driving or other serious offences;
misleads a court;
puts another person in real jeopardy of arrest/prosecution or results in the arrest/prosecution of another person;
avoids a mandatory penalty such as disqualification;
results in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.

In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutions for public justice offences should usually go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.

Perverting the Course of Justice
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:

does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.

The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.

Disclosure or Deceit?

Imagine discovering that a National Newspaper had supplied an un-dated, fabricated/conflated confidential and contested affidavit to try and assist with having me locked up. The very same affidavit that was put forward as an excuse for publishing that I was a gang rapist and abuser of children. There's no date, there's no official legal recognition and it has a dodgy signature.
Then try to imagine an e-mail which confirmed the sharing of such an affidavit by the reader's editor of the newspaper was deleted from the unused material supplied by the prosecution/police to the defence side in a criminal case. Could happen, could it? Watch this space

Oops, nearly forgot. Then try also to imagine that the Information Commissioners Office found that the paper had breached at least three of the Data Protection Act's regulations by sharing the affidavit.


Traditionally, awards in data protection cases have been low: before 2014 the greatest award for distress in an English reported case was £750 with a nominal £1 being awarded for financial loss (Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance4). Contrast this with awards in privacy cases, such as in the leading case of Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited5 (confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Representative Claimants v MGN Limited6), where the court awarded various celebrities who were victims of phone hacking between £72,500 and £260,250 to compensate for the distress they had suffered.

The issue for defendant solicitors, where a claimant solicitor conflates claims for misuse of private information and breach of data protection obligations, is reconciling the level of awards for distress in the leading privacy cases with awards for distress in DPA cases.
from here
Data Protection Act Breaches