Observer Newspaper.The Fog is Evaporating

*UPDATE*
No need to overload you with any of the details. The Information Commissioner's Office concluded this-

"Guardian has stated that it provided the affidavit to on to the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) as she “was likely to be in close contact with the CPS about the case and was an appropriate conduit for provision of the information to the prosecution team.” However, in our view, if Guardian considered disclosure to CPS was necessary for the above purposes, it could have disclosed the information directly to CPS, rather than through Ms Poulton . As it would appear disclosure to Ms Poulton was not necessary for the purpose Guardian suggests (as this purpose could be achieved through disclosure directly to CPS), Section 29(1)(b) would not apply; Guardian would, therefore, need to ensure the disclosure to Ms Poulton was fair. Similarly, in order for Section 35(2)(a) to apply, the disclosure to Ms Poulton would need to be ‘necessary’ for the purpose of legal proceedings. As it would appear Guardian could rather have disclosed the information to CPS, it cannot be said that disclosure to Ms Poulton was necessary. Again, as it appears this exemption would not apply".

"In order for the processing personal data to be fair, data controllers should (amongst other things) ensure that they only process personal data in ways the data subject(s) would reasonably expect. In this case, we do not consider that you would reasonably expect Guardian to provide Ms Poulton with a copy of the affidavit and your views on the matter. Therefore the disclosure was unfair and a breach of the DPA". (ICO, 17.08.2017)

The Guardian/Observer attempted to worm out of their behaviour by relying on certain sections of the Data Protection Act. They squirmed and riddled and twisted the wording of the Act. Why would they go to such lengths? One excuse was that they considered my stalker/accuser of being "an appropriate conduit for the CPS". What a mental excuse! You couldn't make this shit up. What it does evidence is the fact that the paper wanted me silenced. They would do just about anything to shut me up. Stephen Pritchard (Readers Editor) also suggested the removal of my YouTube video's about the fabricated/conflations/obfuscatory affidavit. Failure to do so may end up with legal action, he suggested. Not by the Observer but by anyone who features in them, like David Rose for instance.

Bullies with legal backing can try all they wish to silence me. They will fail at every juncture. Each time they put me on my arse I'll get right back up and carry on the fight to clear my name from the heinous allegations levelled at me. As many of you know by now, I'm quite a tough cookie.

Don't anyone think for one minute this about financial gain. I live the life of a millionaire. That's another massive problem for the Guardian/Observer. I want a jury to hear this case, civil or criminal. I want the author's apologies and I want public retractions and corrections. Once I achieve my aims, I'll be content. Update ends.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I've recently been supplied with a hard copy of an e-mail shared by the readers editor of the Observer Newspaper to a false stalking victim who was/is an accuser of mine. Within said mail, Stephen Pritchard admits to sharing my email conversations and also to sharing a confidential affidavit that has been challenged by me for the past few years. That's right, you read it right, Pritchard admits to obtaining the document from the police and then shares it with a member of the public whose only intentions for use were undoubtedly malicious. And he's done so despite knowing that I've challenged the authenticity of the document.

Unlucky for the Met too is the fact that when they handed over the unused material, as is common for any contested trial, they failed to include this particular e-mail. They supplied three mails from 14th October 2016 but not the one mentioned above. Sounds a bit like a conspiracy, doesn't it?

From what I've seen so far it looks very much like there's been a concerted effort by north Wales police, the Met and Merseyside police to have me convicted and imprisoned. To end my online activities and to shut me up for good. Why would they choose to do so?

I'm of the mind that I've been specifically targeted and chosen as a ringleader of a non-existent gang. Others who opted to help me defend any allegations have also been targeted by the police and associates of those who made false allegations about being stalked. The fog is evaporating as time passes. The Observer have (due to a successful application for an extension) until the 11th August to justify their actions. The IPCC and the ICO(Information Commissioner's Office) are dealing with certain aspects of this issue. The courts may end up dealing with other aspects of it.

In short then. I have indisputable evidence of the Observer handing over a contested undated document to a member of the public. Said document was shared on the 14th October 2016. It was then shared with the Met police who then shared it with the CPS. The Observer claims the document was obtained from north Wales police in January 2016. According to the police they have no knowledge of the said document. Why ask me for a copy if they have it already? Emails from the unused bundle include three mails from the 14th October 2016 but not the specific one from Stephen Pritchard to the false accuser. This damning email is produced in the hard copies of evidence that was to be used at any potential trial. It arrived with other hard copy evidence. I wasn't supposed to have sight of it at any time. When approached by myself about the sharing of my private/confidential personal data, Stephen Pritchard stated that he wasn't prepared to discuss the matter any further.

Keep watching. The fog can't hide this forever.


Must I at length the Sword of Justice draw?
Oh curst Effects of necessary Law!
How ill my Fear they by my Mercy scan,
Beware the Fury of a Patient Man.