FRAMED! - part 17

36

The authors of this book approached Michael Bird, who co-wrote the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth with Brian. It was published by Invenire Press in 2012 and highlighted child abuse, racism and bullying in Lambeth Council.

The book was originally up for sale on Amazon, but was removed by the ‘authorities’ in a major cover-up. The accompanying website www.lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com was also removed by the authorities, as well as a website called www.allaroundjustice.com.

Clearly, with this level of exposure of police and judicial corruption, Brian Pead and Michael Bird had made themselves enemies of the State.

We wanted Michael Bird’s perspective of Brian and of all the events that surrounded him. We have his permission to reproduce his entire account in this chapter. He has previously made two separate witness statements to the Courts and to the police.

“…I first met Brian when he came for an interview at CDSSL in Wallington, South London for the post of ‘Substance Misuse Counsellor’ (I’ve always hated that term).

Brian was, at that time in 2006, a trainee counsellor on his third year of his studies at CPPD. He was looking for a placement and our agency was always open to employing students that stood out as being professional, open to self-reflective practice, keen to learn about substance use and the problems associated with such use and/or its abstinence. Brian fitted all of these criteria but his level of self-examination and that of his clients was something that was obvious from the very start. He would spend more time with me than any other student reflecting on how his sessions went and looking to improve his counselling relationship by asking me if I felt his approach was ‘too little’ or ‘too much’ from a theoretical perspective.

Something that ‘worked’ in theory didn’t necessarily happen in practice. He always asked about my experience of client work as a Gestalt counsellor and took notes (both mentally and physically) whilst having these meetings or discussions.

From the many conversations that we had, it was obvious to me that Brian was a very intelligent man and that he was more keen than any other student (before or since) to keep improving his practice by self-inquisition and development and the understanding of others.

This didn’t always make him the most popular of people in the agency, as his approach and single-minded determination often caused others ‘discomfort’. However, I think this shows that he was happy to put the needs of the client with which he was working above that of his own popularity. Being perceived as ‘nice and friendly’ didn’t seem to be of much importance to him when compared with meeting the needs of his clients. I imagine that he was like this when working in schools, too – that he would put the needs of his pupils before his need to be popular.

This ability to put to one side his need to be seen as popular in order to deal with the needs of his clients or pupils is something that makes him very different from most people. And no doubt why some people – who judge him before knowing him – might describe him as ‘aloof’ or even, perhaps, ‘unsociable’. He is, in fact, anything but unsociable, but he does pick and choose his friends very carefully. Almost always he chooses friends according to their level of spirituality and self-awareness and their ability to challenge him.

The respect that we had as supervisor-supervisee was something that we both shared and this later developed into a friendship. When he eventually left the agency the last discussion we had centred not on the past and looking for compliments on what he had achieved at the agency (which was considerable), but how we could possibly work together in the future to improve the counselling experience for this particular client group and the possibility of working together professionally in setting up a private counselling clinic at his house in Sidcup.

In a little under two years later, I got a call from Brian asking if it would be possible to meet up to discuss something that was happening to him at that time and he wanted my perspective on the events. He came with his lover Maya Walker (who told me she was also a counsellor and that she worked with Brian) and they spent most of the day with me.

It was then that I first learned of the situation that had ‘come into his life’ with regard to some unwanted practices that were being used by the Met Police.

Having had very little dealings at this point with them and, like most people, I always expected an open, fair and unbiased investigation to be taking place but the evidence that I was shown seemed to be anything other than that.

He had been accused firstly of exposure and then of inciting a 14-year-old girl to engage in sexual relations.

Having counselled hundreds – if not thousands – of clients and students over many years, allegations were something I had much experience of. But always with an understanding that allegations without proof, evidence, testimony or witnesses or victims was just that: an allegation. I have always challenged how anybody could be convinced that something presented as a fact was, indeed, a fact. When I was shown evidence that the person that had supposedly been ‘caused to be incited’ was a made-up figure and not a real person, this caused me much alarm.

In the coming weeks, months and years, I was to learn more and more about these ‘allegations’ and their source and I continue to be amazed at how they are given the oxygen to be perpetuated.

I was approached and asked whether I would be interested in contributing to this book. I felt incredibly honoured because it is important to me that the truth gets told – that this book is something of a public document written in order to correct a gross miscarriage of justice.

I could write many pages about all that has happened to Brian, but I feel that the witness statement I made in respect of police harassment by the Metropolitan Police and Essex Police on 6 December 2012 will best serve to convey my thoughts on this subject and I have given permission for it to be reproduced in its entirety in this publication:

“...STATEMENT

I, MICHAEL BIRD of [address omitted for publication] born on 19 October 1968, will state the following:-

1.       I am a qualified counsellor and psychotherapist.

2.      I have been practising since 1999.

3.      At the time I met Brian, I was a counselling supervisor at the Community Drug Service in Wallington, Surrey.

4.      The Community Drug Service for South London (CDSSL) of 20 Woodcote Road, Wallington, Surrey SM6 0NN was established in 1991 as a service that provided support to carers of substance misusers. The project currently provides emotional, practical and social support to substance misusers, ex-substance misusers and their carers, who are resident in the boroughs of Sutton and Merton, aged 18 and over.

5.      CDSSL has an established reputation in the addiction field and the quality of the work delivered has been recognised by various bodies over the years. Several awards have been won since the project was established including the Whitbread Community Care Award in 1988, the Certificate of Merit for contributions towards community service from the Co-operative Union Ltd in 1991, Community Award from the Mayor of Merton in 1998, and the Trust for London award for committed services to the community in acknowledgment of outstanding achievement also in 1998.

6.      CDSSL is a unique organisation that sets itself apart from many others. It has always been a step ahead and a pioneer in many of the services provided over the years. Services that have become well recognised and part of the national agenda for the treatment of substance misuse. Some of the new achievements of CDSSL of this year have been the structured day programme at CDSSL, Wallington, the new assertive outreach project and aftercare service programme at the MACS Project and CDSSL, and the newly established office devoted to working with carers, at 35, Manor Road, Wallington, Surrey, SM0 0BQ.

7.      CDSSL use all of the appropriate quality systems such as QUADS and DANOS, and have ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 accreditation. The organisation attempts to think outside of the box in achieving its aims and provide numerous "added value" services such as out of hours service, aftercare support, a centre specifically for families and carers, and workshops in the community for residents and other professionals. At CDSSL and Macs Projects clients can be self-referred or can be referred by another person/professional.

8.      I interviewed Brian for the post of Volunteer Counsellor. I was assisted in the interview process by Vera Andrew, another qualified counsellor at CDSSL.

9.      Both Vera Andrew and I were highly impressed with Brian. We were seeking to fill four volunteer posts and in that process we interviewed fifteen people.  

10.   Of all the interviewees, both Ms Andrew and I felt that Mr Pead stood out because of his understanding of the client group and the difficulties that they face, how difficult the client group find it to be socially accepted and how they feel marginalised by their choices to use illicit substances to make it through each day.

11.    Both myself and Ms Andrew felt that Mr Pead presented in an extremely professional manner. He asked more questions about the agency and the agency's goals than any other volunteer. This stood out as one of the main reasons for CDSSL appointing him. The questions he asked were challenging and were designed by Mr Pead to elicit a response from his interviewers. This suggested to both me and Vera Andrew that he was really interested in the agency and what it did. This was unique amongst the volunteers, since none of the other volunteers wanted to know anything about the agency – their goal was merely to secure a counselling placement.

12.   I believe that this interview can be seen as indicative of what sets Brian Pead apart from most people. His fierce intelligence, sense of self, humanity and compassion enable him to ask searching questions.

13.   During the interview with me and Ms Andrew, Brian Pead brought up the fact that he wished to use the name of Steve Goodfellow and explained his reasoning. We fully understood why he felt the need to protect himself in such an unsafe environment and we told him that he would need to include the name of Steve Goodfellow on the CRB checks that the agency undertook on his behalf. He readily agreed to this measure.

14.   Following the interview, we both felt that CDSSL would be pleased to offer Mr Pead the role. Another decisive factor was that I was going to be Mr Pead's supervisor and I instinctively felt that his knowledge and experience would mean that he would not require considerable supervision.

15.   Brian received a glowing reference from his counselling supervisor (Clare Manifold) at the Centre for Professional and Personal Development (CPPD) where he was undertaking a Diploma in Humanistic Integrative Counselling.

16.   We had no hesitation, therefore, in offering Brian a post as Volunteer Counsellor.

17.   Brian started working as a Volunteer at CDSSL on 7 August 2006. He was given two male clients.

18.   He worked on 14 and 21 August 2006 and by the end of his first month, I received nothing but positive feedback about him and his work. It was noticeable that he “went the extra mile” with his clients.

19.   As clients continued to be referred to the agency on an increasingly greater basis, I asked Brian if he was able to volunteer on a Wednesday evening as well as his usual Monday evening.

20.  He readily agreed and he was given two further male clients.

21.   I first supervised Brian on 6 September 2006. I was struck by his knowledge and insight. I noted that he was particularly adept at transference and counter-transference. His self-awareness and awareness of others was remarkable. It set him apart from the other volunteers and from many counsellors who had been practising for years. His ability in this area was highlighted in the reference CDSSL received from Clare Manifold.

22.  During an evening of counselling clients Brian would engage in conversations with me, Vera Andrew, other counsellors and other volunteer counsellors at break times or between clients. He discussed – as we all did – many elements of his private life.

23.  He continued to counsel extremely difficult and challenging clients throughout September, October, November and December 2006, many of whom had psychosexual issues, an area of counselling which I knew Brian was deeply interested in.

24.  I noticed a remarkable change in him on 6 November 2006. He told me in confidence that he had sent an email to Lambeth Human Resources about his being bullied by a member of his staff and that he had reported this to his line manager who failed to support him. He felt his only recourse was to inform Human Resources and make an official complaint.

25.  I was perplexed at this information because I – and others – had noted how Brian seemed to get along with everyone within the CDSSL agency, whatever their status.

26.  I was also concerned that Brian had said that this member of staff had claimed to him that she had been keeping a dossier on him since her first day the Unit he was running in Lambeth.

27.  As a trained counsellor and Brian’s personal supervisor, I was alert to Brian’s emotional state and he did not appear to be his ‘usual self’. He seemed pre-occupied with this bullying member of staff.

28.  The following week – 13 November 2006 – I asked Brian if he had received any feedback from Lambeth HR and he told me that they had not even bothered to reply. This naturally concerned me. However, the conversation turned even more serious with the information that Brian then provided me with.

29.  He said that three young black pupils at the Unit he was running had made statements against the teacher whom Brian told me had been bullying him. They had said that she had been racist towards them. I was appalled on hearing this information.

30.  He then told me that a female pupil at the Unit had provided a statement that this woman had offered her vouchers to attend her gym with her after school hours.

31.   I was naturally concerned about hearing this information on two levels – firstly, I was appalled at Lambeth’s treatment of Brian – which bordered on callousness - and secondly, I was appalled to hear that this teacher appeared to be grooming young girls. As a counsellor, I am subject to CRB checks and all of the staff who I employed were also CRB checked as a natural consequence of their applying for the post.

32.  I therefore have a good working knowledge of child protection issues. I also now have three children (at the time I first met Brian I had two children) and have obviously come across child protection issues in a wide range of the circumstances of my family and working life.

33.  I made a note to bring these problems that Brian had been encountering in his working life into our next supervision session. It is a fundamental part of a counselling supervisor’s role to know as much about the counsellors he or she is supervising as possible in order to be able to judge the impact of counselling on a counsellor’s life and emotions.

34.  I would normally have expected to see Brian on 15 November, but he had called in to say that he was unable to attend that evening because of “an emergency at work”.  He did not specifically state what this was when he telephoned CDSSL to cancel, but I imagined that it might be linked to the problems he had been discussing with me in private during our supervision sessions and also on an ad hoc basis.

35.  He returned to CDSSL on the following Monday, 20 November 2006.

36.  I naturally arranged to set some time aside that evening so that I could discuss with him his work-related problems.

37.  I noted that he was particularly stressed. He told me that Lambeth had not supported him in his official complaint against staff bullying. But what he then told me alarmed me even more.

38.  He informed me that he had been forced to dismiss the teacher because yet another female pupil had made a statement against her of grooming – asking the pupil round to her flat after school and asking her to go shopping with her at the weekends.

39.  Brian informed me that he had reported this to his line manager but that his line manager had not informed the police or the teaching authorities. This bothered me greatly.

40. Brian continued to attend the CDSSL agency and his work and his relationships were extremely good, but I could tell that he was under a great deal of strain.

41.   I next set time aside to speak with Brian on 11 December 2006. One of his clients was unable to attend because he was working away, and thus Brian had a free hour. I used this time to meet with him. What he told me was alarming.

42.  Brian informed me that he had been suspended by Lambeth and had not even been told the reason why. I found this staggering. It had been obvious to me – from studying Brian and from his work at CDSSL – that he had been doing a thorough and professional job at the Unit. I believed that he would have had the best interests of the pupils at heart, just as he had the best interest of CDSSL clients at heart. I had no doubt about this. Brian has a pre-disposition towards doing a professional job wherever possible.

43.  I told Brian that I did not believe it to be lawful to suspend a person where they are not informed of the reasons for that suspension.

44. During the time that Brian had been at CDS, he had also undertaken a counselling placement at Whitefield School in Barnet. He did not mention to me that he had been suspended from that placement.

45.  Brian attended CDSSL on 20 December 2006, his daughter’s 32^nd birthday. This exemplifies his professionalism and commitment to his clients.

46. He also told me that he had received a glowing testimony of his running of the special Unit from someone called Nadia Al-Khudhairy of King’s College. I had no doubt that he would have received such a glowing report of his work, since CDSSL felt similarly about him and his work with us.

47.  He next attended CDSSL on 3, 8, 10 and 15 January 2007 and I naturally asked Brian how he had been getting on in respect of the suspension by Lambeth.

48. He told me that he still had not received the specific allegations against him. I found this difficult to believe, but I felt that Brian was not lying to me. We had worked closely together for more than six months and we had gotten to understand one another very well in that time. Besides, I felt relaxed about trusting my gut reaction to him. The whole episode with Lambeth seemed ludicrous.

49. He next attended on 17 and 22 January 2007. Still he had not received the specific allegations against him.

50.  Finally, on 24 January 2007, he told me that he had received a list of allegations against him. He provided me with a copy of these allegations. I find them quite unbelievable and obviously concocted against him by a woman he had been forced to sack because of her grooming and racism.

51.   I also couldn’t understand why – if Lambeth were giving any credence to these allegations whatsoever – he was still working as a Counsellor at Whitefield School in Barnet. I felt that either he was a danger to pupils or he wasn’t. If he was a danger – which I did not believe for one moment – then he ought to have been suspended from Whitefield because otherwise Barnet Council were putting children at that school in danger.

52.  Furthermore, I also could not understand why Lambeth Council – if they had genuinely suspended Brian for allegations which included sexual inappropriateness – had not contacted CDSSL since the agency works with extremely vulnerable adults and volunteers might come into contact with children on home visits if they accompanied a qualified counsellor on such visits.

53.  I instinctively felt that something was seriously wrong in this entire matter. I had not felt right about it since Brian had told me that Lambeth had not supported him in his bullying claims against the teacher he had sacked, whom I now know to be known as Maryn Murray. Brian had been so professional with regard to the ethics around confidentiality that he never told me her name until after she had been dismissed.

54.  I continued to be Brian’s supervisor throughout January, February and March. The dates he attended were 3, 8, 10, 15, 17, 22, 24, 29 and 31 January 2007; 5, 7,12, 14, 19, 21, 26, 28 February; 5, 7, 12, 14, 21, 26, and 28 March.

55.  It can be seen that Brian was a hard-working counsellor, his efforts prolific and his attitude professional. His clients continued to attend on a regular basis, which is exceptional in such an agency. He was clearly doing something right.

56.  However, I noted that on 19 March 2007, Brian had not attended. This was highly unusual and I resolved to find out why he had not appeared.

57.  I discussed his non-appearance with him on 21 March. He told me that he was feeling depressed by the actions of Lambeth Council. They had still not called him to attend an interview despite the fact he had been suspended in December 2006. More than three months had passed and still he had not been interviewed. I knew that this was not right.

58.  I asked him if he was still counselling at Whitefield and he told me that he was. None of this made sense. If he had been suspended by Lambeth because of allegations against children, then why was he still working as a Counsellor at Whitefield School?

59.  The normal practice within counselling supervision is that a supervisor will see each counsellor at least once a month for at least one hour. This time is spent discussing client issues and the potential impact of those issues on the counsellor.

60. However, I noted in my sessions with Brian that they now focussed almost entirely on his issues with Lambeth. He was still professional around his clients (which is why I allowed him to continue in role as a Volunteer), but it was also clear to me that Brian was suffering greatly because of these allegations.

61.   I was also aware that Brian had been seeing a private client, a male, since November 2006. Brian told me that this client had been worried that he might be a paedophile and Brian and I discussed this possibility. Brian continued to research this.

62.  During April, Brian attended on 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 23 April.

63.  I met with him on 23 April. He told me that he had attended a Disciplinary Hearing on 19 April 2007 with an Employment Law solicitor called Alex Passman and that Passman had told him that he (Brian) would be found guilty.

64. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I also couldn’t believe that Brian had been suspended on 8 December 2006 and yet had not even been interviewed until 19 April 2007. I knew that this was wrong.

65.  I enquired about Brian’s health and he told me that he was under the doctor and had been diagnosed as having a reactive depression due to Lambeth’s bullying of him.

66. Later on, Brian told me that Lambeth had contacted Whitefield School and gotten him removed from that counselling placement. I felt that this was unjust. I also struggled to understand how – if he had been guilty of improper conduct against children – he was allowed to continue to work at Whitefield School for several months after his suspension from Lambeth.

67.  By April 2007, Brian had amassed more than 160 hours of face-to-face counselling with a wide range of clients and he then left the agency on good terms. CDSSL were sorry to see him leave to continue his counselling training. We continued to keep in touch on an ad hoc basis thereafter, but as he became busier and busier after being unlawfully dismissed by Lambeth we did not remain in regular contact until August 2008 when he came to visit me with his partner at that time, Maya Walker, who was also a counsellor and who worked with Brian at Off Centre counselling agency in Hackney, London.

68. I was appalled to learn that Brian had been arrested for alleged exposure. I couldn’t believe this, but – as a trained counsellor – I have been taught to look for patterns or themes in people’s lives. It occurred to me that this allegation of masturbation at his bedroom window was an exact echo of the allegation by Lambeth of his being masturbated in a theatre. I gave the allegation no credence whatsoever, especially when Brian told me that the females claimed to have seen him masturbating over a period of nine months with his right hand. I know him to be left-handed and had seen him writing client notes at CDS for many months, so I was certain that he was not ambidextrous. Knowing him to be left-handed, I believed these allegations were also nonsense, just as the allegations against him at Lambeth were.

69. But what made me even more certain was that Maya Walker had told me that Brian had pointed out to her one Sunday in May 2008 that he had noticed a strange pattern of behaviour with regard to one of the four students living in a house diagonally opposite his house.  On this particular Sunday, Maya Walker told me that Brian had sought her counsel on the likely psychological makeup of such odd behaviour – the woman opposite would close one curtain and leave the other curtain open and strip off her clothes in front of this open window. Ms Walker also told me that she had visited an elderly neighbour of Brian’s – Ellen Stanley – who confirmed that she, too, had seen this odd pattern of behaviour with the curtains. I am not at all surprised that Brian would have noticed this odd behaviour – nor to learn that he brought this to her attention in a jocular fashion – because this is what makes him such an excellent therapist.

70.  I was also informed at this meeting with Brian and Maya Walker that in March 2008, Brian had delivered staff training on Child Sexual Abuse to the staff at Off Centre. Maya Walker told me that she had attended the training and that she was “very proud of Brian.”

71.   The allegation of underage sex was also an echo for me of the allegations that Lambeth had made against Brian.  I instinctively felt that this was no co-incidence.

72.  I naturally inquired about Brian’s health and he informed me that he had been unlawfully dismissed by Off Centre, who had sacked him without holding a proper investigation and without calling a friend of Brian’s – Geoffrey Bacon, whom I had heard Brian speak about before.

73.  I was building up a picture of institutional bullying of Brian.

74.  I agreed to work with Brian on a regular basis in order to monitor his health.

75.  I learnt in our sessions together that the police had lied to his daughter and that Social Services had threatened to take her children away from her if she continued to have any contact with her father. Brian spoke to me about the emotional pain he was experiencing. He had often spoken to me about his grand-children and it was clear how much he loved them.

76.  Brian had specifically asked me to work with him as his counsellor because I already had a reasonably intimate account of his work, the allegations against him at Lambeth and immediately following the perverse ruling by the Employment Tribunal in Croydon, the appalling harassment of him by the Metropolitan Police.

77.  From August 2008 through to December, we met on a minimum basis of once a month. My records show that occasionally we met on two occasions a month. This pattern is not unusual in such circumstances. We both led busy lives and I lived some distance from Brian. But the need to talk about one’s problems can be quite varied, depending on the level of the strength of the client’s ego (or sense of self).

78.  During our work together in this period, Brian provided me with an increasing picture of the police harassment of him. Yet it concerned me that the Police had been conspicuous by their absence during the time he had had the allegations made against him by Lambeth (which included several child protection issues).

79.  I also struggled to understand how the Police did not arrest Murray after Brian had collated proof of her grooming and racism and gathered signed statements from the pupils.

80. I also became concerned about Ms Walker’s attitude to Brian during this period because it changed dramatically. Despite the fact that she had known that the exposure allegation against Brian was ludicrous and despite the fact that she knew there had never been a victim in the alleged incitement case, and despite the fact that she had met Geoff Bacon and known that he was willing to be a witness and that his hard drive had been burnt out by the police, she failed to support him. I found it difficult to understand her behaviour.

81.   Obviously, the impact of Ms Walker’s withdrawal from the relationship played a significant part on Brian’s emotional state. Coupled with the loss of his daughter and grand-children, and together with the fact that Brian had found evidence that the Police had been lying to his friends, neighbours and work colleagues, I was deeply worried for Brian. I wondered just how much he could take. The State was clearly bullying him and no-one was helping him. Whenever he turned to solicitors, they all started off very positive and then it seemed as though “someone had had a word in their ear” and they withdrew their help. One of the most common tactics was that they claimed they were “too busy”. He was often given very junior solicitors who were clearly far too inexperienced to handle the level of corruption that Brian had unearthed or the extreme harassment being meted out against him.

82.  Throughout 2008 and early into 2009, I met with Brian reasonably regularly. I wanted to be called as a character witness in the Exposure trial at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009, but neither Brian’s solicitor nor his counsel, Dominic Bell, called me as a witness. I found this to be negligent of them.

83.  I was horrified to learn that the three female witnesses did not attend court on the day of the trial. In my experience, females who claim to have been sexually abused “want their day in Court” and they want it as quickly as possible. Brian told me afterwards that the Judge had given the Prosecution three further dates to come to trial but that they had all been refused on the grounds of writing dissertations, producing plays and even sailing on a cruise. I discussed the impact of this nonsense with Brian soon after the postponed trial and he was feeling particularly depressed, which was completely understandable in the circumstances. Maya Walker was present at Court that day and confirmed that the Judge had played fast and loose with the Criminal Procedure Rules.

84. I learnt that Brian had also been charged with Incitement at the very same time as the Woolwich trial and some eight months after his arrest. It occurred to me – as a trained counsellor – that all of these events were not merely some random incidents that were mere coincidences, but rather that they were orchestrated by the police or the judiciary or, even more likely, by Lambeth Council since it all seemed to flow from there.

85.  Indeed, Brian told me that on 25 February 2008, the day of the Employment Tribunal one-day Hearing of his case against Lambeth, that the alleged girl had initiated a conversation with him online that same evening. I saw this as a clear case of entrapment. Brian also proved to me that he had given the alleged girl a false mobile phone number.

86. But perhaps the most important reason why I knew all these allegations against Brian to be nonsense was that people with a sexual interest in 14 year olds, would not usually have a sexual interest in 20-somethings and would not normally be sexually active with a 38 year old woman which Brian told me he was with Ms Walker.

87.  None of this made any sense whatsoever.

88. I was approached by Brian to be a character witness in his case at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009.

89. I found this to be strange because it is my understanding that a witness in a genuine court case will be written to by the solicitor or defence counsel.

90. This did not happen in Brian’s case.

91.   But what happened at Southwark Crown Court filled me with dread. The Jury was not sworn in. The defence statement was only half-a-page. A key witness (Geoffrey Bacon) whose hard-drive had been burnt out by the Police when they unlawfully seized his computer was not called as a witness. I was certain at this stage that this continued pattern of abuse of Brian’s human rights was the result of direct police and local authority harassment.

92.  I was also concerned when I took to the stand that I had been deceived by Brian’s barrister, Dominic Bell. Outside of the courtroom, I had discussed with Mr Bell a whole range of issues about Brian and what I knew about Brian’s research, that Geoffrey Bacon’s computer had been burnt out by the Police, that his office had been ransacked at Lambeth, that his office had been ransacked at Off Centre and much more.

93.  When I took to the stand, I fully expected to be asked all these questions.

94. But I was not.

95.  The range of questions I was asked by Mr Bell was extremely narrow. We did not, for example, discuss all of Brian’s research into sexual abuse. We did not discuss the computer belonging to Geoffrey Bacon. We did not discuss so many elements of Brian’s cases that I came off the stand feeling deflated and deceived.

96. I also felt that if I had been deceived by Bell, then it stood to reason that the Judge and the Jury had also been deceived.

97.  The prosecution didn’t even ask me a single question. I found this odd. I know that this can sometimes occur in a trial, but in this instance, with such allegations against Brian of a sexual nature, I would have expected to have been robustly interrogated by the prosecution so that my own testimony would be destroyed. But this didn’t happen.

98. I later made a second statement to the effect that Mr Bell had been negligent throughout the entire trial process and this has been sent to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

99. However, it got even worse because after I left the stand, I went to sit in the Public Gallery.

100.   During the Judge’s summing up, a Juror asked for clarity. She wanted to know whether the Jury would be able to find Brian guilty if there was no victim. The Judge said that no, they could not convict Brian because there never was a victim.

101.     During the trial I met up with Brian as often as possible to discuss how he was coping with it. He told me he was in a poor way because of the tremendous emotional stress. I diagnosed that he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from the time when he was sexually abused in a children’s home and also by his own brother. This trial had caused him to have numerous flashbacks to his own trauma. Even Maya Walker confirmed this. One day they were making love and Brian had a panic attack and the lovemaking ceased. I knew that Brian was suffering greatly from the trial and the continued harassment by the Police.

102.    But what made Brian’s stress more intolerable is that he knew he was the victim of corrupt practices.

103.    The Jury returned a guilty verdict when they had been informed that this was not possible because there had never been a witness.

104.   I spoke with Brian on the telephone on the day the Guilty verdict was received. The Judge had hurried along a verdict which I know to be unlawful in itself. A jury needs as much time as it needs in order to reach a valid verdict.

105.    Brian was a broken man on the day of the verdict. I was seriously worried for him. He was close to a complete breakdown and what made it worse was the fact that his daughter was no longer speaking to him and he had no contact with his grand-children.

106.   Just prior to his trial he had been beaten up in the street by four police officers. We discussed this when we met at Liverpool Street Station on 17 September 2009.

107.    Brian told me that two female witnesses had written to Bexley Police and complained about the beating and the police brutality. They had later been paid a visit by the police and forced to withdraw their statements. Brian found this difficult to cope with.

108.   I was surprised that he did not become paranoid. I would not have blamed him if he had. But he didn’t.

109.   He was concerned – despite his own trauma – for all the children being abused on the Faceparty website where he had uncovered abuse and corruption and why the Police had brought all this against him.

110.      Brian showed me comments left by hundreds of former users of Faceparty.com.

111. The police lied at his trial when they said that the website had been liquidated. It was, in fact, still active and I knew this for myself by logging on.

112.Brian had taken clear evidence of police perjury at his trial to the Judge but he refused to allow Brian to show it to the Jury. Brian was naturally upset about this abuse of power by the Court. I knew, however, that this was clearly an unlawful trial.   

113.I discussed the State’s interference in Brian’s life with him, which I knew to be abuses of his Human Rights. He was most concerned about his grand-children. He did not want them growing up with lies. He knows the damage – often over decades – of such lies within a family.

114.     Brian and I continued to meet up after the verdict. At Sentencing on 27 January 2010, the CPS asked for a perpetual search warrant on Brian’s house and this sent out a clear message to me that the Police were not only harassing Brian but that they were determined to destroy his reputation and his research.

115.Brian and I continued to meet on a monthly basis (and sometimes twice monthly) after the trial and throughout 2010. He told me that he was also being counselled by a Pat Hallett, a counsellor to whom he had been referred by his doctor. It is not normal practice for me to work with a client who already has a counsellor, but I felt morally and ethically bound to continue working with Brian on at least two levels (i) I had been with Brian throughout his trials which flowed from his unlawful dismissal by Lambeth and (ii) such was the level of abuse he was receiving I sometimes felt that he should have been having daily support. 

116.     Brian made me aware of his doctor’s contact details (the Barnard Medical Centre, Sidcup) and the medication that he was prescribed (Citalopram and Diazepam) by his doctor as a direct consequence of the treatment of him by Lambeth, the police and the Courts.  

117.I took the view that Brian was not going to take his own life, though it seemed that the authorities were driving him to do this. It might even have been convenient for them if he had done so, such was the level of corruption that he had unearthed.

118.      However, I monitored this potential to suicidal ideation very closely.

119.     At Brian’s trial I met another friend of his, John Callow, a mental health practitioner who sits as a panel member to decide if patients ought to be sectioned. I had had a brief discussion with Mr Callow about Brian’s mental health and he was also concerned about the abuses by the State.

120.    Mr Callow felt that Brian should be monitored by all of his friends and supporters but that Brian was not in immediate danger of taking his own life despite all the pressures on him.

121.I continued to be concerned about Brian when he was arrested twice on the same day on 7 January 2011 for two more bogus charges. I knew these to be false. It was yet another example of Police harassment.

122.    Brian had written to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in December 2010 and he had shown me a copy of the letter.

123.    This letter provided incontrovertible evidence of police corruption.

124.    Yet the police then arrested Brian twice on the same day.

125.    Having been a witness to obvious corruption in a criminal court at Southwark Crown Court on 23 December 2009, I was appalled at the treatment being meted out to Brian and I ceased working with him but chose instead to support him as a friend and colleague again.

126.    The reason I made this difficult choice was because I could see that his greatest need was for support in meetings with solicitors (some of whom were deliberately working against him), barristers and at bogus trials and court hearings that the Police created against him.

127.     I could also monitor Brian’s emotional state more easily and on a more regular basis if I supported him in this way.

128.    I continued to see Brian on a regular basis (sometimes weekly, sometimes fortnightly depending on my own and his own availability).

129.    Then Brian was unlawfully arrested when he moved to Southend and he was also forced to attend another bogus trial at Woolwich Crown Court in January 2012. He was not allowed legal representation and I therefore acted as his McKenzie Friend during the trial in which he was forced to defend himself. I was closely monitoring the impact of these further human rights abuses on Brian’s emotional wellbeing.

130.    He moved to Southend in January 2012 and since then I have been working with him on an often daily basis.

131.In May 2012, I decided to have a month away from contact with Brian because I was feeling overwhelmed by the level of corruption that he had uncovered, by the abuses by the police and the courts, and by obviously corrupt solicitors and barristers with whom I came into contact. It became obvious to me that it was not just Brian’s perception of events but a very real reality.

132.    I then re-established contact with Brian and noticed how members of Essex Police were harassing him.  Whilst not a sex offender, members of Essex Police continued to visit his house on a monthly basis to harass him. I noted the fear and the panic attacks that the police had engendered in Brian.

133.    In May 2012, Brian had written to his Member of Parliament pointing out all the corruption that he had encountered (and providing Mr James Duddridge with incontrovertible evidence), but he refused to help Brian. I was appalled by the lack of assistance from his Member of Parliament (who wrote to him and told Brian never to contact him again) and I noted that Brian would become depressed when those he turned to for assistance (and who should be protecting him) are actually involved in abuses against him. It felt as though a woman who had been raped is then raped again by the police officer who comes to her rescue.

134.    I also visited the Southend Echo offices with Brian on 29 November 2012 when he reported James Duddridge to them, but they refused to carry the story. Brian had also provided them with copies about the corruption.

135.    Throughout the summer of 2012, I worked closely with Brian on the book “from Hillsborough to Lambeth” about the corruption that he had encountered whilst working as a Head teacher there.

136.    In closing, I am able to state that Brian’s experiences should not have occurred to anybody, particularly to an innocent man. I have witnessed significant changes in Brian.

137.    Usually, a client experiencing depressive symptoms related to an adjustment disorder should be able to be treated and dissipate within six months following the end of the stress that produced the reaction.  There is an exception to this rule, however, as some stressors continue over a long period of time, rather than occurring as a single event. For example, if a person is harassed at work, the harassment can continue for months. In this case, the depression may not be severe enough for a diagnosis of a major depression, but it lasts for more than six months. As long as the stress continues, an adjustment disorder diagnosis can be used.

138.    The police and the judicial system continued to bombard Brian with four criminal trials and six civil claims against him. This continued to compound his reactive depression.

139.    Furthermore, I was – and continue to be – worried by the Southwark Crown Court trial because Brian is himself a survivor of child sexual abuse and yet he was charged with an offence where he was never an abuser because there never was a victim.

140.   This case brought on Post Traumatic Stress Reaction (sometimes called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD) in Brian.

141.     However, the bullying at work that he encountered at Lambeth was of particular concern to me. I understand from the research that formed the basis of the book “from Hillsborough to Lambeth” that Brian had reported that he was being bullied by his line manager but that neither he nor Lambeth Human Resources acted upon Brian’s complaints at all.

142.    Brian has suffered greatly as the result of a six-year campaign of abuse against him perpetrated by Lambeth Council and the Metropolitan Police and also by the legal system and some individuals working within it.

143.    My conclusion is that Brian is not mentally ill in the diagnostic meaning of that phrase, but that he has been subjected to a campaign of abuse on an unprecedented scale by the very authorities and agencies that are supposed to protect the ordinary citizen.

I believe this statement to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief...”