FRAMED! - part 10

22

As May merged into June, the female students left 62 Days Lane – their job done.

On Monday 9 June 2008, Brian attended Bexley Magistrates’ Court with Maya Walker for a preliminary hearing. Unsurprisingly, given that the police tactics were to cause as much disruption to Brian’s life as possible, the case was mysteriously adjourned until 7 July 2008, when he had to re-appear at the same court for a committal hearing to the Crown Court. In effect, this procedural step could have been taken on the same day, but that would have been far too simple.

He was released on conditional bail. The condition was that he would not interfere with witnesses or obstruct justice and that he must not commit an offence whilst on bail.

It was specifically stated that he must not make contact with Elizabeth McIntyre, Natalie Ryan or Katie Prouse.

Why did the Bail Sheet not include the name of Christine Holloway? As things stood, he could legally go and talk with her and ask her what her perception of the events was and why she had not made a statement. Brian decided not to exploit this loophole, however.

On Tuesday 10 June 2008, Maya Walker composed the statement reproduced in Chapter 17. She made this statement of her own volition and was not coerced by anyone to make it.

On Thursday 12 June, Brian became 55 years old. He received birthday cards from his daughter and grand-children.

On Friday 13 June 2008, he attended what Nicola Noone was apt to call a ‘Disciplinary Meeting’ but which was as far removed from a genuine meeting as it is possible to be. At this meeting, with Nicola Noone again taking a dominant role and John Hilton fading into the background as though he did not wish to be present, Brian was unlawfully dismissed. With Maya Walker present as his witness, he asked Nicola Noone why she had not called Geoffrey Bacon to establish the veracity of his claims that he had been investigating Faceparty, but she failed to respond to that question, claiming that her investigation had been ‘thorough’ – she was sounding like Cathy Twist at Lambeth who had failed to interview pupils and parents.

This was yet another tactic of the police – try to run your enemy out of money. As a part-funder of the Off Centre charity, it would have been easy for the Metropolitan Police to threaten to withdraw funding if they did not dismiss Brian Pead.

Off Centre had seriously breached employment law – just as Lambeth had done.

It should be remembered that this was just one month after he had visited the Employment Appeal Tribunal to hand in his letter dated 8 May 2008. And in that short space of time he had been unlawfully arrested twice, had his house unlawfully searched twice, been the subject of an illegal stop and search, lost his job as a Group Therapist, isolated from his colleagues and been charged with Exposure in his own home. This Kafka-esque scenario was becoming increasingly surreal.

On Sunday 15 June 2008, Brian’s daughter, Sorrel, visited with her partner and father of her children, Paul Birch and all three grand-children.

They arrived at a time that Brian was plastering his kitchen. He stopped and they gave him some birthday cards but no presents – Brian has no interest in material possessions because they are ephemeral, fleeting and transitory. What matters more to him is how he treats people and how they treat him.

The conversation was somewhat strained and the children’s presence ensured that the matters which needed to be discussed within the family were never discussed.

As a counsellor and Group Therapist, Brian knew that it is at times of crisis that a family either forges stronger links or breaks whatever links it has.

The present situation engulfing Brian was something that he needed his daughter’s help with, but – for whatever reason – she fell short. Brian is not a man to blame people, feeling that it is a waste of energy that could be put to better use elsewhere. Besides, in 2001 his daughter and her partner had threatened to not let him see his grand-children if they could not get their hands on Sorrel’s inheritance money, so it seemed to Brian that the likely response of his daughter and son-in-law towards his present difficulties was to bury their head in the sand, pretend nothing had happened and withdraw any offer of support by distancing themselves from him. He knew that he had once invited them to inspect his mother’s will and that they had not done so, preferring instead to cling to beliefs that he had had a say in constructing the will when the truth was nothing of the sort. His mother had her own mind and used it in creating her own will.

Brian is a man of tremendous prescience – he knew as they walked out of the door that he would not see them again as a family unit for many years.

He also knew that his daughter – despite her grammar school education at Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School in Hurst Road, Sidcup - and his son-in-law were not the most intelligent of people and that they lacked the necessary inquisitive skills to challenge the police. They had never bothered to look at his mother’s will to obtain reality – so they surely would not examine or challenge police evidence. They had both been the product of broken homes and ‘strong’ mothers – but mothers who would believe anything even if evidence existed to the contrary.

And if all that was stacked up against Brian, one more factor went against him. His daughter’s partner was a co-Director of Helical Gearboxes and Foxberry Garage in Brockley, south London. The repair of gearboxes is its major revenue stream.

Paul Birch would often boast to Brian that his best customer was the Metropolitan Police Service..

Brian knew that he could not compete with the organisation that was putting food on the table at Melville Road. 

23

In an effort to disrupt his life still further, Brian was re-bailed each month to appear at Charing Cross police station to answer bail, and occasionally the police station in Horseferry Road.

He now had no job due to his unfair dismissal from Off Centre and so became another statistic to add to the growing unemployed in Britain. He would have to have his life disrupted by looking for work, signing on and being available for work.

He was given unconditional bail on 4 June 2008 and was supposed to answer bail at Charing Cross police station at 10:30 on 13 August 2008, but on 5 August he received notification that ‘we are unable to proceed at this time and this notice is changing the time and date at which bail must be answered to 10:30 on 30 September 2008.’

 His main focus now had to be the case for Exposure. Immediately after his arrest on 20 May 2008, he had contacted solicitors Nelson, Guest and Partners of High Street, Sidcup, Kent and was assigned to Laurence ‘Laurie’ Smith.

According to Brian, Laurie Smith was an ‘old-fashioned, old-school type of solicitor’. He was respectful, thorough and wise. He explained that the case against him was full of holes, but that the police did have three separate witness statements, all of which incriminated Brian. However, Smith continued, the fact that the fourth tenant in the house had not made a statement was of crucial significance.

He also urged Brian to take photographs of his house, the views from the bedroom windows, the scaffolding and to obtain statements from neighbours, as well as character references from friends who had known him over a long period of time. Brian had several of these people in his life at that time.

Brian set about the tasks with great vigour. He went to see his immediate neighbours (except for Susan Pool) and they readily agreed to write statements for him. Glen Meeking at 87 Days Lane agreed to come to court as a witness to speak about Brian’s character.

His partner, Maya Walker, took a set of more than fifty photographs, and his friend, John Callow, agreed to make a set of drawings that would show the true distance between Brian’s house and the house at 62, and the true angle between the houses (because they were not opposite, but diagonally opposite and Callow had the means and the skill to measure the precise angle.)

All of this work meant that Brian’s attention was being drawn away from his Appeal in respect of Lambeth. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had not contacted him.

On 24 June 2008, Brian conducted some preliminary research into Faceparty and went on the Digital Spy website in a forum created by someone calling themselves ‘ElMarko’ which had been created to discuss the strange events surrounding Faceparty. (Brian was obviously not the only person who had been investigating it.)

Someone called ‘Connie Beachamp’ posted the following: “…well, what do you expect from a site that allows pre-teens to upload naked pictures of themselves, its nothing but a paedos dream that god awful shite…”

ElMarko responded with:

“…Pre-teens?

1)         they aren’t allowed on the site.

2)        they have people manually checking and removing pictures...”

These posts completely corroborated what Brian had been saying all along and what he had told police under interview.

Someone calling themselves Toxic Bunni added this post: “…Isn’t faceparty full of 16yr olds who chat to old blokes for money?? …”

Again, this is also what Brian had told police. Someone calling themselves elmarco (note the different spelling from the previous elmarko with a ‘k’) posted a response: “…Definitly (sic) gone down hill over the past couple years…”, which is precisely what Brian had told the police and Geoffrey Bacon and others. He was obviously not the only person to notice the moral degeneration on the website.

By 1 July 2008, the police had received forensic reports on Brian’s computers – they contained no child pornography. If we are to assume that the police involvement around Brian was legitimate and that they had a sincere belief that he was interacting with under-aged children on the internet, it would normally follow that such a person would have child pornography on their computer.

Brian has discussed child pornography with a number of different friends over the years. Their discussions have been around such questions as “Who controls it?”, “Why is it not blocked?” or “Are the police controlling it and recycling it in order to obtain convictions?” Brian has no interest in child pornography itself except for a genuine interest in its control, those who use it and why the government would simply not employ filters to ensure it cannot be accessed. Brian believes that he was photographed during his sexual abuse in the children’s home, and thus his interest stems from those experiences, too.

Now, it has to be understood what occurred next. If we are to assume that – up until 1 July 2008 – the police had a genuine belief that Brian was communicating with under-aged children on the internet, the lack of child pornography on all of his six computers would appear to discount their theory.

He had given up his internet account at Days Lane because he had full access at his Off Centre office and felt that he did not need the internet at home any longer.

Therefore, if the police had originally had a genuine belief that Brian was acting improperly, the evidence against such a belief was powerful – no child pornography on six computers.

His computer at Off Centre had also been unlawfully seized. Brian had applied for a copy of the Forensic Report on that computer, but has not received it, despite two such legitimate requests. Brian has told the authors of this book that there was no child pornography on that computer. All it did contain was his research into child sexual abuse for the Staff Training he undertook on 28 March 2008. Off Centre were asked to provide a copy of the Forensic Report into Brian’s computer, but they failed to respond to that legitimate request, too.

Thus the police had forensically examined seven computers belonging to Brian Pead. They were unable to examine, of course, his laptop because (as friends had witnessed) it had broken down, he had taken it to a repair shop where he was told to dispose of it. It is extremely unlikely that it contained child pornography because only an idiot would take such a machine into a computer repair shop. The police were later to claim in court that that laptop did contain such material.

Having examined seven computers associated with Brian, the police must then have realised that he was not ‘into’ child pornography.

Although the authors firmly believe that the police already knew that Brian had been investigating them, we will, for the moment, continue with the assumption that the police had examined seven computers associated with him in good faith, in the belief that they would discover unsavoury material.

However, if they then did not discover any such material (because no such material was to be found), they would then be forced to ask exactly what was he doing on the internet, in Faceparty and on MSN?

They would have then had to consider (if not conclude) the fact that he was, in fact, investigating them for his own reasons. He was doing nothing illegal, so he does not have to provide reasons why he would want to investigate Faceparty, though he has already stated that he wanted to ‘smoke out’ the person claiming to be a 14-year-old. It should be remembered that this man is a researcher – he had written the entire history of Liverpool Football Club, he had amassed the world’s largest private collection of newspapers detailing Liverpool FC’s matches from 1892, and he had had nine books published at this time. He also had a First Class honours degree in English, was a qualified counsellor and lifelong student of psychology and, perhaps most importantly, he had been sexually abused in a children’s home in the 1950s.

The authors believe these are sound and legitimate reasons for his deep interest into the activities of someone he initially believed was a paedophile posing as a teenager. Furthermore, his research into Faceparty was confirmed by many others whom he had never met or contacted in any way. For this reason alone – there are many others reasons, too – the authors believe Brian’s version of events. It can also be corroborated by robust evidence – unlike the police case against him.

Thus, by 1 July 2008, it was clear that Brian was not interested in child pornography and it was looking increasingly likely that he was – as he had claimed on 4 June during interview – been ‘smoking out’ the alleged teenager.

On 12 July 2008, Brian sent a letter to Banjo Aromolaran, the Chair of the Off Centre Board of Trustees in which he stated that he would appeal his unlawful dismissal and that he wished to obtain character references from Staff at Off Centre. He did this for the following reasons:

(a)     he wanted these character references

(b)     he knew that even if the majority of staff would not support him, there is always at least one person in a group who would support him

(c)     he knew that if nobody would support him after having worked closely with him for six months, then it would be likely that the police had completely turned the staff against him (as they had done to his daughter). 

Brian also complained that Off Centre had never contacted Marcia Weise, the duty solicitor who had told Brian on 4 June 2008 during the police station interview that he had “uncovered an illegal police sting operation”.

He further complained that Off Centre had misinformed his colleagues about the reasons for his dismissal and the allegations against him (this information had come, naturally, from his lover, Maya Walker, who was still employed there.)

He also complained that Off Centre had breached employment law and also the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists’ (BACP) code of ethics in failing to support their colleague and perverting the course of justice.

He also pointed out that he had not received a true copy of the Minutes of the meeting of 13 June 2008 in which he had been summarily dismissed.

And he pointed out that Off Centre – in their ‘thorough investigation’ – had not bothered to call Geoffrey Bacon, despite being given his mobile and landline telephone numbers.

In  his reply, Mr Aromolaran claimed that Brian was making false claims by stating to the police that he had been undertaking research into child sex abuse.

Mr Aromolaran appeared not to have conducted even the most basic of research – the Off Centre website claimed that it offered counselling for survivors of sexual abuse, the Group Therapist’s role required experience of such counselling, and the TOIL log book would show that Brian undertook Staff Training on 28 March 2008 in the Sub19 offices at Florfield Passage.

The reader is asked to examine why Mr Aromolaran would neglect to conduct even this basic research.

The reader is also asked to consider that, upon his suspension from Lambeth Council, Brian’s staff had not been allowed to communicate with him and upon his suspension and summary dismissal from Off Centre, the same pattern of non-communication occurred. In both instances, Brian was isolated. Some readers may well think that this is mere coincidence, or ‘it’s just how organisations operate’, but others will suggest that a definite pattern had emerged. At Lambeth, he had whistle-blown about grooming, bullying and racism, and whilst employed at Off Centre, he had been investigating illegal police activities online. Mere coincidence or a definitive pattern? 

Between 1 July and 31 July 2008, the police began to panic. Cast your mind back to what Brian had told the police in interview on 4 June – that he had last used Faceparty on 15 May 2008 at the house of Geoffrey Bacon in Chislehurst. According to Brian, he had told the ‘girl’ who had messaged him (not the other way round – consider motive) to “Fuck off! You are a fake!”

This adds further corroboration to Brian’s version of events. But the police would know that this conversation would leave a digital footprint on Geoffrey Bacon’s computer.

What occurs next in this bizarre story will cause you, the reader, to challenge your perception of the police as a service which has your best interests at heart. It will challenge you to suspend all what you think you know about the police and local authorities and the Government. (The authors know that there will attempts by the police and the Government to ban this book for reasons which will become very obvious as you continue reading this chapter.)

On Thursday 31 July 2008, at 7pm, builder Geoffrey Bacon returned home from the Gordon Arms public house in Chislehurst where he had enjoyed several pints with friends and sat down to eat the roast dinner that his father, Roy, had prepared for him. Geoffrey had a couple of tins of lager with his dinner. He was not drunk, but he was slightly inebriated as he relaxed and put his feet up with his dinner on a tray on his lap to watch television.

There was a knock at the door. Because he was eating and had his dinner on his lap, Geoffrey Bacon was unable to answer the door and so his father Roy, then aged 82, went to the door.

Three officers in plain clothes pushed past the elderly Roy, and walked – without permission of the householder - into the living room where Geoffrey was eating.

The police officers consisted of DS Jason Tunn, DC Julia Godfrey and a second female officer, calling herself DC Rebecca Hall.  

The officers failed to explain why they were in the house, they failed to allow Geoffrey and Roy to invite a friend or neighbour into the house and they once again broke all of the PACE regulations – just as they had done when they unlawfully searched Brian’s house on 4 June 2008 and just as they had done when they unlawfully seized Brian’s computer at Off Centre.

Tunn explained to Geoffrey that the police “need your computer because it is vital evidence which will prove Brian Pead’s innocence or guilt.”

Before we continue the story of the events of this July evening, we should pause to consider the very words that DS Tunn used because, although they sound familiar to our ears and because they seem straightforward, it would be easy to overlook the importance and significance of those few words.

We will break the phrase down into three component parts. Firstly, DS Tunn claims that the computer is ‘vital evidence’. He had failed to show, at this stage, a Search Warrant, despite being asked for one by Roy Bacon, the householder.

The authors believe it is safe to assume that if a computer is to be ‘vital evidence’, the police would have shown a Search Warrant immediately. It is also safe to assume that the computer would be placed in an evidence bag, that it would have a unique number given to it, that an officer would enter the seizure in a Seized Property Book (as had occurred at Brian’s house on 4 June) and that an officer would provide a signature to take responsibility for this ‘vital evidence’.

It is also good practice for the police to provide the owner of such a computer with a ‘ghost’ copy of the hard drive for obvious reasons. The owner would have a copy of the hard drive and that copy would be an exact copy of the hard drive that the police had seized. As well as being procedurally correct, this is just plain common sense.

DC Julia Godfrey told Roy Bacon: “Brian Pead is a paedophile”. This was the very same disinformation that she had first used on Brian’s daughter, Sorrel, and then on Nicola Noone and John Hilton at Off Centre and to anyone else who would listen.

Brian had known Geoffrey and his father for some 18 years or so. They had worked long hours together on refurbishing Brian’s house and gardens. As a former Chairman of Sidcup Round Table, Brian had invited Geoff to become a member. At one time, Geoffrey, a very good amateur darts player, had invited Brian to join the team, which he did so, though he was only a very average player with the occasional flash of brilliance that poor amateur players enjoy. Brian and Geoffrey had been socialising together on many different occasions and had been to numerous parties together. They had shared intimate details of each other’s private lives with one another, and Brian – as a counsellor – had listened as Geoffrey tried to cope with the deaths of his mother and sister. Brian regarded Geoffrey Bacon as man of high integrity and a loyal friend. He felt that, on occasions, he was a little ‘rough around the edges’ and that he lacked ‘sophistication’ but all friends make allowances in the name of friendship and Brian felt these minor flaws in his friend’s character were an extremely small price to pay when set against his honesty and integrity. Roy Bacon was of the very same ilk – it was as though father and son had been hewn from the very same piece of rock.

Almost in unison, both Roy and Geoffrey Bacon exclaimed, “He’s not a paedophile!” and so Godfrey ceased speaking.

An officer asked, “Do you know if he was conducting any research on the internet?”

This needs to be examined more carefully. We have already seen that Brian’s computers contained no child pornography and that it is extremely likely that, once the police became aware of this fact, they must have then assumed that Brian’s account in his interview was correct – that he had been conducting research into Faceparty.

The laid-back Geoffrey Bacon replied, “It’s nothing to do with me. What he does is his own business,” whereas Roy Bacon stated, “He’s an author – he’s always doing research!”

Notice that Geoffrey Bacon did not actually answer the question about whether he was aware of the research that Brian was undertaking. This was not a deliberate act to conceal the truth from the police or interfere with their inquiries, but he was aware, like Brian and his father and others, that the police were crawling all over Brian’s life and he did not want to say anything that might incriminate his friend, whom he knew had done no wrong. Geoffrey knew that once you say something to the police – any small fact at all – they are trained to use that information against a person.

Tunn asked Geoffrey, “Are you aware of the nature of the allegations against Mr Pead?” and he replied, “Yes, and I do not believe for one minute the allegations against him.”

It is important to note here that both Geoffrey and Roy Bacon knew of the allegations that had been made against Brian at Lambeth. Brian Pead is not a man to hide things. He believes in full transparency. It sometimes causes him problems because some people are unable to cope with his ‘realness’. Most people who encounter him find this an admirable quality. Others find it something they would rather avoid. Perhaps they have something to hide. But Brian operates in a world of ‘realness’ and he ‘says it as it is’, or at least how he sees it.

Although he was under the influence of alcohol from hours spent in the Gordon Arms and from drinking lager with his dinner, DC Godfrey asked Geoffrey Bacon to make a statement. This is a breach of the PACE Regulations. A person under the influence of alcohol (or drugs) should not be asked to make a statement. But breaking all of the regulations and standard police procedure was not something that seemed to bother Godfrey or Tunn.

This is what Geoffrey Bacon told the police in his statement dated 31 July 2008:

“…I am making this statement regarding my friend Brian Pead. I have known him for about 16 years. On occasions Brian comes to my house to use my computer. As far as I know he uses it to check his emails, although I do not watch what he is doing. I have no knowledge of Brian undertaking any research projects, or being involved in any research. I am aware that Brian was recently arrested by the Paedophile Unit, and do not believe he is capable of doing whatever he was arrested for…”

The authors have in their possession two completely separate copies of this statement. Both of them are in Julia Godfrey’s handwriting. Only one of them is signed by her as a witness to Geoffrey Bacon’s signature.

Significantly, neither statement has a unique reference number. They are inadmissible as evidence and have no legal weight whatsoever.

Having taken this statement, Geoffrey Bacon took Tunn and Godfrey into his bedroom, where he unplugged his computer and Tunn carried the tower downstairs.

Only at this point was Roy Bacon – the householder – given a copy of what Tunn alleged was a Search Warrant and a copy of the Premises Search Book (101). It contained only one page. Only one item had been seized.

Once police officers complete their search, they are required to write EXECUTED across the search warrant and provide a copy to the householder, a copy to the Court which issued the warrant and retain a copy on the police file. This is standard procedure and common sense.

Without putting the computer in an evidence bag, without providing a signature for its seizure, without providing a receipt for the computer, Tunn picked up the computer tower and put it in the unmarked police car.

They had been in the house a little over ten minutes.

Once they had gone, Roy Bacon picked up the document entitled ‘Information to the Occupier’ and examined it. He was outraged at what he saw.

It claimed that the police had obtained the warrant from the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 25 July 2008 under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2008.

It appeared that the police had sought permission to search the house for ‘computer or computer-related paraphernalia’.

The form had been completed by DS Tunn and it stated that the time of the search had commenced at 19:20 and ended at 19:30. It was also dated 31 July 2008.

Consider this information. We will examine it slowly, step-by-step because this information is of vital significance to this story.

Firstly, DS Tunn claimed that this was a legitimate Search Warrant. He did not produce a copy of the police submission that was made – allegedly – at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in order to obtain a warrant.

Secondly, it shows that the entire search of the house took only ten minutes. Yet Roy Bacon owned a three-bedroomed house which also had a conservatory, a utility room extension, a loft, three garden sheds (housing many of Geoffrey’s building tools) and a car. The house had also acquired a considerable number of items over a period of some 45 years – any of these items might have hidden child pornography. Indeed, the living room itself – which the officers illegally entered – contained three units which stored more than 200 DVDs. None of these were seized. All of them might have contained illegal material which would have been covered by the terms of the search warrant, were it legitimate.

Yet all that had been seized was the computer which Brian Pead had told the police in his interview on 4 June 2008 he had used to tell the Faceparty ‘girl’ that he knew she was a ‘fake’.

Godfrey, Tunn and DC Rebecca Hall (if those are their real names) had apparently been authorised by a Detective Inspector Manning to make an application for a Search Warrant on the Bacons’ house in Chislehurst. Why had he authorised such a move? Even the most cursory research would have shown that both men had been cleared by the Home Office to work in police stations and royal residences as builders and that neither man had a criminal record. Why, then, did a Magistrate permit such a warrant to be issued given the good characters of both men which had been established over many decades?

The ‘Information to the Occupier’ form also shows that a copy of the warrant was shown to both Geoffrey and Roy Bacon prior to the search being carried out, but this was completely false. Both men – of considerable integrity – have told the authors that the search warrant had not been shown to them prior to the search being carried out, but that it had been left with them as Tunn and his colleagues made good their escape with the prized computer.

Section 5 of the Information to the Occupier form shows that the extent of the search was ‘only access to bedroom and lounge.’ (This entry was made in DC Godfrey’s handwriting.)

Yet, if a warrant had been obtained giving the police powers to search for ‘computers and computer-related paraphernalia’, why did the three officers not search any other room? In fact, the spare bedroom contained a video camera – it could easily have had unsavoury material on it. Indeed, Geoffrey Bacon is something of a film and music fan, and in his bedroom were more than a further 100 DVDs. None of this material was seized. The police had only one objective in mind – to seize the computer and not leave a copy of the hard drive with the owner.

Geoffrey Bacon informed the police that he needed the computer to run his business, access the accounts of customers, complete tax forms, invoice customers, send quotations and so on. With this knowledge, the police were duty bound not to interfere with the smooth running of his business, but they failed to acknowledge what they were being told.

This reminded Brian Pead of his time at Lambeth. He had had recourse to dismiss a female teacher calling herself Maryn Murray for grooming female pupils, bullying and racism and within three weeks of her dismissal, he was then unlawfully suspended and eventually dismissed. Within a working day of his suspension, his office had been unlawfully ransacked and all of his files removed.

He had told Tunn and Godfrey on 4 June 2008 that he had used Geoffrey Bacon’s computer and now that was being seized amidst breaches of protocol and the Bacons’ human rights.

Section B of PACE deals with the code of practice for the searches of premises by police officers and the seizure of property.

Section B states at 1.3 the following:

“…The right to privacy and respect for personal property are key principles of the Human Rights Act 1998. Powers of entry, search and seizure should be fully and clearly justified before use because they may significantly interfere with the occupier’s privacy. Officers should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by less intrusive means…”

All police forces have to abide by the Codes of Practice set down in the PACE manual.

Quite rightly – in the opinions of the authors – PACE has a high threshold for the obtaining of Search Warrants and it indicates here that searching an occupier’s home is a serious matter and any decision to search must not be taken lightly because a search may well abuse the occupier’s human rights. This chapter has shown how the human rights of both Roy and Geoffrey Bacon were significantly abused on the evening of 31 July 2008.

A ten-minute search of a reasonably large 3-bedroomed house with a utility room extension, a conservatory, a loft, three garden sheds and a car causes concern to the authors (and others to whom they have shown this evidence). Combine that fact with the seizure of only one item from the house (when the alleged warrant allowed them significant powers of seizure), and the fact that the computer was not placed in an evidence bag, a copy of the hard drive was not given to the owner, a receipt was not issued to the owner and the fact that Brian Pead had told the police that he had used it and told the ‘girl’ on Faceparty that she was a ‘fake’ adds to the incredulity of the police’s actions.

Add all of those facts to the fact that the company owning the Faceparty website had gone into liquidation the previous month and hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of pounds were ‘lost’ during the process of liquidation.

Add that information to the fact that Brian Pead had just two months previously taken his letter requesting an Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal over his wrongful dismissal from Lambeth, and it is hard not to believe that Brian Pead was being set up by the police, just as Alex Passman had said he had been set up by Lambeth Council.

But if Roy and Geoffrey Bacon thought that that was the end to the abuse of their human rights, they were very much mistaken.