FRAMED! - part 11

 24

The Bacons invited Brian over to dinner during the following week to discuss the search of their house. They showed him the paperwork that had been left by the police, and Brian started examining it. He also resolved to obtain a copy of PACE 2008, knowing that it would be a significant move on his part.

He also felt terrible that his friends had been dragged into the police investigation.

Roy Bacon was like a father to Brian. Both men respected each other immensely and although Brian’s father was alive, they were at that time estranged.

“Brian,” said Roy, “you have uncovered something huge here. You’ve stepped on a landmine and they are putting a load of shit your way. That ‘girl’ is nothing more than a fart in the wind and what you found at Lambeth is obviously connected to all this shit. When I worked as a builder, I was sent to the Hollies in Sidcup which was, I believe, owned by both Lambeth and Southwark, and we were aware of sex abuse in that home. Some of the workers told us builders about it. There was definitely dodgy stuff going on there.”

Both Roy and Geoffrey Bacon regaled their own version of the events of the evening of 31 July 2008.

Geoffrey was upset with the fact that he had made a statement which he was not at all happy with now that he was not under the influence of alcohol and now that he had had time to reflect. He decided that he wanted to make a second, more thorough statement. He has given his permission for his second statement to be reproduced in its entirety here:

“…Statement from Geoffrey Thomas Bacon

My name is Geoffrey Thomas Bacon.

I have known Mr Brian Pead of 89 Days Lane, Sidcup, Kent, DA 15 8JP for approximately 18 years.

I have known him in many different social situations, including when we were both members of Sidcup Round Table. Each year Sidcup Round Table organised an event called Marafun, which raised money for charity and this event involved contact with all members of the public and all age groups.

At no time did I, or other Round Table members, have any cause for concern regarding Brian’s behaviour around young people or especially young women.

I have also observed him at parties, in the pub and other social events and have never had any cause for concern.

On the night of 15 May 2008, Brian came to my house and we went on to the internet together. Brian did not have the internet as he had given it up, as well as his BT landline.

During our time online, Brian and I were having normal conversations with one or two people. At some time during that evening, Brian received an Instant Message from somebody claiming to be 14 years old.

Brian was at the computer, and I was sitting on my bed drinking a cup of tea. After about ten minutes, Brian turned to me and said, “I’ve been contacted by someone claiming to be 14. It clearly isn’t a 14-year-old, but she - if it is a ‘she’ - came into an adult chatroom and claimed to be after money. Let’s string ‘her’ along and have a laugh.”

After a few messages, Brian then turned to me and said, “This is clearly not a 14-year-old sending these messages, but an adult.”

I asked him what made him think this and he replied, “Because the profile is clearly fake, it’s just a photograph with no text, and because of the language the person is using.”

He then said to me, “This weirdo can just fuck off, pretending to be 14 and pretending to be after money for sex.”

After a couple more minutes, Brian logged off MSN, saying to me, “I’ve had enough. I don’t want to use this anymore. During all my research, I’ve come across a lot of weirdos and potential paedophiles on MSN and on Faceparty and I think it’s very scary. I want nothing more to do with it, and I certainly won’t be going into chat rooms again.”

Since the accusation, I have still had Brian round my house, both for social and practical reasons and I have no reason to believe the accusations brought against him.

He has used my computer to write letters for job applications, but he has not accessed the internet or chatrooms.

On 31 July 2008 I had a visit from police claiming to be from the Paedophile Unit, at about 6.30/7pm. They had a search warrant and a notice to seize my computer in respect of the allegations against Mr Pead.

After letting the police in, and telling them they can have the computer because they will find nothing on it, I then undid all the connections to my pc, and went back downstairs. Julia Godfrey asked me if I would like to make a statement. I said I did not have a problem with that as I believe Mr Pead to be innocent of all charges.

Whilst under the influence of alcohol, I gave Julia Godfrey my statement, which I signed and kept a copy. I have since found out that it is improper of the police to extract a statement when they know the person making a statement is under the influence of alcohol.

The male officer - whom I believe to be Jason Tunn - said, “Do you realise the nature of the allegations against Mr Pead?”

I replied, “Yes, and I do not believe for one minute the allegations against him.”

One officer - I can’t remember which - asked me, “Do you know if Mr Pead was researching on the internet?”

I replied, “It’s nothing to do with me. What he does is his own business.”

My father replied, “He’s an author – he’s always doing research!”

In closing, I would say that over the years Mr Pead has been a good friend and someone who would help anyone who is in need of help…”

One point needs to be cleared up here – the issue of ‘research’. People who know Brian Pead know that he is a man who is always conducting research on a wide variety of subjects. If something or someone catches his imagination, he may well conduct research. But those who know him well wouldn’t necessarily call it ‘research’, they would say that it’s “Brian being Brian”. They accept him as a man who has a wide vocabulary, reads extensively and who thinks a lot about life and what it is to be human.

Thus when he was asked on 31 July 2008 whether Brian had been undertaking any specific research, Geoffrey Bacon said that he did not know of any research because in that moment, having had his dinner interrupted, being under the influence of alcohol and wanting the police to go, he was unable to immediately recall any. He accepted – like his father Roy – that, as an author, Brian was almost always in ‘research mode’. Once Geoffrey had had an opportunity for further reflection, he recalled the incident of 15 May 2008 (some two and a half months before the unlawful house search) in which he had observed Brian on Faceparty.

25

It is said that ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’, and the case against Brian for exposure was taking its time to be heard before a jury. On 7 July 2008 he had appeared at Bexley Magistrates’ Court and a date had been fixed for the trial at Woolwich Crown Court on 7 August 2008.

Before that trial, Brian decided to have a short break with his friend John Callow in the Forest of Dean, “a beautiful part of the country,” as Brian describes it. The two men – both counsellors – had been away on holiday together to Malta and they were both members of the Esporta gym just off the A20 in Sidcup. They enjoyed one another’s company and would often discuss many diverse topics, putting the world to rights.

The trip to the Forest of Dean was to be a back-to-nature camping holiday, though they did stay a night or two in a local bed and breakfast.

It was Brian’s intention to stay away until the 30 July 2008, but he returned early for a number of reasons. He needed to let off some steam whilst John Callow needed complete rest and time to think alone. The two men spoke about their differing needs as the holiday unfolded and took the mature decision for Brian to return to Sidcup so that John Callow – who was driving – could remain in the Forest. Maya Walker drove down to Gloucestershire to pick Brian up.

Upon his return, Brian found a letter dated 15 July 2008 from Laurie Smith of Nelson, Guest and Partners. Enclosed was a first draft of Brian’s statement in his defence against exposure. “…Please knock it into shape or make any amendments you think appropriate…” the letter urged.

Brian did, indeed, knock it into shape and made several important amendments.

There was a preliminary hearing on 7 August and he did not want to waste any time.

On 23 July 2008, Smith sent a further letter in which he said that he had a list of witnesses, but that he needed to know precisely what each witness could ‘bring to the table’.

On 24 July 2008, Bridget Mcguire, the Nurse Practitioner to Dr Scott at the Barnard Medical Practice in Granville Road, Sidcup, sent a letter to Laurie Smith in which she confirmed that Brian had attended Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup on 8 May 2008 and that he received a diagnosis of gout.

On 4 August 2008, Laurie Smith wrote to Glen Meeking regarding his offer to attend court as a character witness (a) for Brian and (b) against the female students at 62 Days Lane.  

On 5 August 2008, Laurie Smith sent Brian a letter stating the following:

“…The proceedings themselves contain one allegation against you notwithstanding that the statements seem to cover a number of allegations. It follows that the one charge that you are now facing is that on 7 May you intentionally exposed your genitals intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm and distress. You will notice that no specific person has been mentioned although the complaint has originated from the girl students who occupied a property at that time diagonally opposite to your own property…”

Notice that once the rhetoric had been stripped away, there was only one allegation against Brian. This appeared to be similar to what occurred at Lambeth where many spurious allegations had been made, but once they had been stripped away, they boiled down to nothing.

Notice also that no specific person had been named, which was also similar to the events at Lambeth and was certainly a mirror of the incitement allegations because no-one had been named there because no-one ever existed – the ‘girl’ was a “fart in the wind” as Roy Bacon so aptly described it.

Laurie Smith continued:

“…All three witnesses do seem to graphically describe your alleged actions and therefore it must follow that there are three young ladies, probably without any previous convictions (although we will enquire about that) who apparently have very little reason to make up the allegation so therefore it must be considered to be a strong case against you…”

The letter continued:

“…However turning to the other side of the coin, we have the geography of the properties concerned which seems to be in your favour in that because of the height of the window sills it is difficult to understand how these girls could see from the distance involved (a) your genitals, (b) with your hand inside your trousers at night, sometimes in a darkened room, and (c) the evil expression on your face. I understand that the girls are drama students and it may be of course that they have exaggerated what they have seen out of all proportion or context as to what actually took place.

Also we have the point that there was scaffolding and noticeboard advertising the scaffolders, which would have been an impediment to an unobstructed view. Taking these matters into account and the height of the window sill which would come up to your waist it would be very difficult in my view for you to have exposed your genitalia unless you stood on a chair or some other object to bring yourself up above the window sill.

I wait to see the evidence of the surveyor who is going to deal hopefully with these matters and also with the projection of the adjoining house [Authors’ note: 87 Days Lane, the home of Glen Meeking and his family] beyond your building line which might also prove to be an obstruction at least to one of the windows.

You are a man without any previous convictions therefore your defence appears on the face of it to be strong too.

Now most cases of this kind are won and lost in the evidence given actually in the court. I have not seen the girls concerned and it may of course be that they will not be keen on giving evidence against you but we must work on the assumption that they will in fact give evidence although I am curious about the 4th girl who hasn’t apparently made any statement and this is something I will take up with the prosecution…”

Brian intended to maintain his plea of ‘Not Guilty’ and on 7 August 2008 he met Pamela Brain, of 1 Inner Temple Lane, the defence counsel arranged by Laurie Smith. He had chosen a female barrister so as to soften the impact of having defence counsel cross-examine three female students.

Pamela Brain met Brian at Woolwich Crown Court and she gave him a copy of the Defence statement she had made out. The defence statement denied that he had been watching Elizabeth McIntyre in the way that she had described, that he had had his hands down his trousers on 5 May 2008 and that he was naked and masturbating at his bedroom window on 7 May.

The defence statement also included the fact that he had a bad attack of gout on the evening of 7 May.

Pamela Brain also asked for the following disclosure:

(a) the Crime Proforma dated 8 May 2008

(b) a copy of the 999 tapes

(c) any notes dealing with contact between the police and civilian witnesses where the substance of the allegation was discussed

(d) whether any of the civilian witnesses have a history of mental illness or have made similar allegations previously.

 Note what she does not ask for: whether Christine Holloway, the fourth student living at 62 Days Lane, had ever made a statement. Just two days earlier, Laurie Smith had assured his client that he would enquire about that so it is difficult to comprehend why Pamela Brain would omit to ask for such a critical piece of disclosure. Furthermore, Pamela Brain failed to obtain copies of the 999 tapes that she said she would seek and nor did she obtain the notes dealing with contact between the police and civilian witnesses where the substance of the allegation was discussed.

On 26 August 2008, Laurie Smith wrote to Brian and informed him that the trial for exposure would take place at Woolwich Crown Court in the week commencing 2 February 2009.

In September 2008, Brian heard that Sub19, the sister charity to Off Centre, had lost its funding and been closed down. He lost contact, therefore, with all of his former colleagues in that organisation, though after a little research, he found that Matt Doocey (his former line manager at Sub19) had secured employment at The Tavistock clinic.

On 2 September 2008, Brian received a letter from Nicola Noone, Off Centre’s director of support services. He had written to the charity complaining of his unlawful summary dismissal and he also requested assistance from Off Centre confirming that he had taken Staff Training on 28 March 2008 on the subject of child sexual abuse.

Nicola Noone refused to co-operate. Her final paragraph read:

“…We are clear that Off Centre has responded to a most unfortunate situation fairly and sensitively with full consideration to due process. You have chosen not to progress an appeal in line with Off Centre’s Disciplinary and grievance procedures. Consequently our position is that you are an ex-employee whose contract and association with Off Centre, its work and its clients has been terminated as a result of gross misconduct…”

The self-styled ‘Support Services Director’ was not supporting Brian Pead, who had been summarily dismissed without being charged by the police. Furthermore, her letter is inaccurate because Brian had initiated an appeal, just as he had done so at Lambeth. His friends would corroborate this and also his lover, Maya Walker, who was now beginning to feel uncomfortable about working at Off Centre.

But this was not the end of Nicola Noone’s unhelpful attitude towards Brian. It should be pointed out that Off Centre was – at this time in its history – part-funded by Hackney Council and the Metropolitan Police Service.

In October 2008, John Callow – a counselling friend – visited Brian’s house with a sketch pad, camera and measuring wheel. He spent almost the whole day of available light taking the numerous measurements he needed in order to compile an accurate drawing of the area between 89 and 62 Days Lane, Sidcup. The end product was a set of professional drawings which were good enough to be entered as evidence in Court in support of Brian’s obvious innocence.

Between September 25 and 17 December 2008, Laurie Smith apparently fell ill and a different solicitor, David Sadeh, took over Brian’s case.

However, on 19 January 2009, just two weeks before Brian’s trial date, he received a letter from Sinem Ibrahim, a young female solicitor at Nelson, Guest and Partners. She had recently joined the firm. Notice the sleight of hand. Initially, Brian had been given a genuine old-school worldly-wise solicitor. He had ‘fallen ill’ and been replaced by a man whom Brian had never met, and then he, in turn, was replaced by the newest recruit to the company.

In her letter of 19 January 2009, she informed Brian that there was now to be a pre-trial review at Woolwich Crown Court on 26 January 2009. The police were certainly keeping his mind off Lambeth and his Appeal and they were certainly making him jump through a large number of hoops. The legal system of England and Wales – often put forward as ‘the best in the world’ - is easily manipulated by those employed in it.

Notice what Ms Ibrahim states in her letter:

“…The purpose of this hearing is for the defence and prosecution to highlight any outstanding issues to ensure that there no problems in respect of your trial. This is to ensure that your trial takes place on 2 February 2009…”

 This all seems straightforward enough, but as the events played themselves out, it was to prove far from straightforward. Skulduggery was being orchestrated, sleight of hand being administered and Brian’s human rights were being abused with every decision taken by the legal profession.

On 26 January 2009, Brian attended Woolwich Crown Court with Maya Walker. Sorrel Pead was no-where to be seen. She had long ago faded into the background.

Those readers who have a deep-rooted need to cling to the notion that the legal system in England and Wales is the best in the world, those readers who have a notion that the police force is one of the finest, and those readers who believe that barristers and judges are upright and honest citizens at all times would be advised to put this book down and cling to their beliefs.

Those readers who decide to remain with the book will hardly believe what occurs next in this most amazing of true stories.

26

With Geoffrey Bacon’s computer still in police custody (but no official chain of custody to prove that it had been seized), and with a trial for Exposure scheduled for February 2009, Brian was working hard to prove his innocence.

He knew that he had to secure as much help as he could and with this intention, he set about writing to Off Centre, who had unlawfully dismissed him on 13 June 2008.

He decided to write to the Clinical Manager, John Hilton. The American had recently joined the charity. He employed some unusual strategies with his staff which some found challenging and uncomfortable, but Brian felt that he understood what Hilton was trying to do.

He would frequently visit the office that Brian shared with Maya Walker, his lover, and Mark Elmer. It was in this office that the three counsellors would share information about therapeutic approaches and, of course, each of them would share personal information about themselves. John Hilton would randomly walk into the office and say things like, “Why is it that all sex offenders have been sexually abused, but that not all those who have been abused become sex offenders?” before turning on his heels and leaving the office.

He knew, of course, that this would provoke discussion amongst the staff and get them thinking about their own clinical practice. Brian admired this aspect of John Hilton’s character a lot, partly, it must be said, because he uses similar strategic devices. He will sometimes drop a ‘bombshell’ into a conversation just to see how people react. Their reaction – or lack of it – will tell him much.

Once John Hilton walked into the office and said, “Who wants to see my photos of cottaging?” and this, again, was just another device to stimulate discussion between the counsellors. (In the event, it turned out that he had actually once put on an exhibition of such photographs).

Brian decided that he would write to John Hilton, because he believed the Clinical Director to be more approachable and more ‘worldly wise’ than – in Brian’s view – the highly judgmental Administrative Director, Nicola Noone.

Taking this story as a whole, this letter is of great significance. We ask you to do two things when reading the letter: to pay regard to (i) the language and tone used by Brian Pead and (ii) to the information (the content) of the letter itself, to what has happened and to what has not happened.

“…Dear John,

Earlier this month, I wrote to Ms Noone with regard to two important issues. I have not yet received a reply. In an effort to avoid an escalation of this matter, I am now writing to you so that I have demonstrated my willingness to provide Management with an opportunity in which to reply and take appropriate action. Let me reiterate my request to Ms Noone.

1.               Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (and notwithstanding my other legal entitlements) I am requesting a true copy (i.e. an unadulterated copy) of the two meetings which I had with yourself, Ms Noone, Maya Walker and myself.

Neither myself nor Ms Walker has ever received a copy of the notes which were taken in these meetings.

It is reasonable for me to expect to receive true copies of these meetings (or statements read out) by Wednesday 22 October 2008.

2. I want to know what has happened to all of the notes, records and files that I created on the work-station allocated to me.

Furthermore, should these notes and files no longer exist, I want to know who ordered the deletion of them, and when this was executed.

Again, it is not unreasonable of me to expect to receive this information by Wednesday 22 October 2008…”

In the circumstances, we believe that that was a respectful letter and an equally respectful tone that Brian had adopted towards an organisation which had unlawfully suspended him and unlawfully dismissed him.

However, it is the content of the letter that intrigues us the most. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Brian asked for a copy of all of the Minutes created at the two meetings he had:

1.          his unlawful suspension and

2.         his unlawful dismissal

By law, Brian should have been sent these documents.

He then also sought clarity about all of his research which resided on his work-station which itself resided on the Off Centre main servers.

Brian knew that his directory on the main server (brian.pead) contained all of the research that he had undertaken on any psychological topic, but especially his research into child sexual abuse, and he also knew that his planning and Powerpoint presentation were sitting on the Off Centre server. Apart from a desire to ensure that he took possession of all of his research, he deliberately wrote this letter because he had ‘inside’ information from Maya Walker, who was still his lover at this point in his life.

Brian was unlawfully suspended (just as he had been at Lambeth) by Nicola Noone on 5 June 2008.

That same day, he asked Maya Walker to log on to the main server as if she were him, that is, of course, that she typed in his name and his password.

She did this.

Only to find that the entire directory “brian.pead” had been deleted.

This was an exact mirror of what occurred to him at Lambeth Council as the Head Teacher of the OLCVS pupil referral unit. He had been suspended on 8 December 2006 and in the following week his office had been ransacked and all his files, research and notes had been destroyed.

By writing to Off Centre and requesting this information, he knew he was placing them between a ‘rock and a hard place’. He knew they would never admit to destroying all his evidence and he knew they would never provide Minutes of the two disciplinary meetings because they did not exist.

And, of course, they never did admit to these crimes. We use the word ‘crimes’ advisedly and we use it because it is true – Nicola Noone gave instructions for vital evidence in a forthcoming trial to be destroyed, and this was in itself a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, as well as perverting the course of justice.

But Nicola Noone had not completed her criminal activities – much worse was yet to come from her.

It should not be forgotten by the reader that during this period, Brian was not seeing his daughter or beloved grand-children. There was no support from the family quarter - Julia Godfrey had seen to that by telephoning Sorrel Pead and telling her that her father was a ‘paedophile’. Not only is Brian not such a person, but Godfrey’s description was inaccurate in any event. The term ‘paedophile’ refers to pre-pubescent children.

If this girl existed (which she didn’t) and if ‘she’ was 14, then one would expect her to have passed through puberty. The term for adults interested in children who have passed through puberty is ‘ephebophile’, from the Greek for ‘adolescent’ - ephebos.

The police and the government have created mass hysteria around the word ‘paedophile’. And while the mass of the population are looking over their shoulder to see if a paedophile is behind the next tree, the Government siphon off funds meant for social improvement into other ‘ventures’ or other ‘pockets’.

Between 15 October 2008 and 30 January 2009, Brian was unemployed and also on bail, being required to attend Charing Cross police station each month.

The police were determined to keep him busy.

On 30 January 2009, Brian attended Charing Cross police station. On this occasion, Marcia Weise was not present. Her place had been taken by a solicitor called Richard Jameson, whom Brian had never previously met.

It transpired that – after months of ‘investigation’ - the police were alleging that Brian had called the mobile number given to him by the alleged ‘girl’.

There was no evidence – it was just a claim by the police who were, by now, desperate to defame Brian because of his investigation into them.

Julia Godfrey was accompanied by a Richard Morgan. The interview was brief, and Brian denied calling the telephone number provided by the over-keen ‘girl’.

The interview became more and more farcical and Brian called a halt to it by asking to speak with his solicitor without the tape being played.

Richard Jameson was a worldly-wise solicitor and he was able to see that the interview was somewhat farcical and that the police were determined to ‘get’ Brian. He suggested that he issue a written statement and, when they returned to the interview room, Brian gives a ‘No Comment’ interview.

The statement read as follows:

“…In relation to the allegation disclosed to me on 30 January 2009 regarding a telephone call made to a number provided by ‘Shelly’, I previously gave a full account in relation to other associated matters, in interview under Caution, and I have no comment to make now, regarding any telephone call made on 26 April 2008, other than to state that I never made any telephone call (on any date) to any person known to me as ‘Shelley’…”

Brian signed the statement, dated it 30 January 2009 and Richard Jameson witnessed the signature. The two men returned to the interview room and the tape recording machine was started again. Within less than five minutes, the interview was over. Brian had answered ‘No comment’ to all of the police questions.

As authors, we wonder how many of our readers noticed that Richard Jameson had used two different versions of the name ‘Shelley’ in writing out the statement on Brian’s behalf?