FRAMED! - part 9

20

Having had no legal representation when he was interviewed and charged with Exposure at Bexleyheath Police Station, Brian opted to have a lawyer present during this interview.

The duty solicitor was a sharp-minded black woman called Marcia Weise from a firm of solicitors known as AA Mirsons.

Ms Weise was not a solicitor, but a paralegal. Brian found out that she wanted to train as a solicitor. She told him that she had been informed by the police that he had allegedly been interacting with girls under the age of 13 on the internet.

This was news to him – this had never been mentioned during his arrest. Furthermore, the only under-13 year old he had ever interacted with on the Internet was his grand-daughter, Emily, aged 9.

Brian could not help feeling that this was a repeat of the spurious allegations he had encountered at Lambeth. Allegations grew and changed as they went along, and here the police had misinformed Marcia Weise as to the real reason for his detention.

DC Godfrey undertook the initial interview, with Tunn in the background. Brian had encountered this before – this was merely a repeat of PC Sargeant and DC Saib.

Godfrey asked Brian to tell them about his encounters on the Faceparty website. She was trawling for information.

At this stage, Brian was not aware that the Faceparty website had been liquidated, so all of his responses were made without that knowledge.

Godfrey asked how Brian had come to engage with a person known as ‘Shelley’. Note how that name is spelled -  with an ‘e’ before the ‘y’. This small - but important fact – would have tremendous significance for Brian in months to come.

Brian started to recount the truth as he saw it. He explained that he had encountered this person on Faceparty and that ‘she’ was clearly not a teenager but an adult.

Upon hearing this, Julia Godfrey exclaimed, “But you couldn’t have known it was an adult’, to which Brian replied, “But I did. I told my friend Geoffrey Bacon it was an adult. I knew from the very start.”

Now, the authors believe that a detective engaging in a real investigation would have then asked the most obvious next question: “How did you know that it was an adult?”

But Godfrey failed to ask this most basic of questions. The reader might like to pause and ask him/ herself why a police officer would not ask such an obvious question. The authors believe it was because the police already knew that Brian was innocent and that he had known that he was always chatting with an adult.

Brian challenged DS Tunn to “obtain the chatroom logs from Faceparty because they will prove that I am telling the truth”.

Tunn replied that he was unable to obtain the logs. Brian knew this to be a lie. He had heard about, and read, several cases in which chatlogs were featured as evidence in criminal trials. This was an extremely simple case in Brian’s eyes – he asked for the chatlog evidence and that would clear him. The lead detective claimed that the logs were ‘unobtainable’. He did not mention to Brian that Faceparty was in the process of liquidation and all evidence of illegal police activity on that website was being ‘lost’ in the process.  

Brian went on to explain how he and this person alleging to be a 14-year-old had then been chatting on MSN and how, when using his friend’s computer in Chislehurst, he had eventually told ‘her’ that she was a fake. He also explained that he had intended to report ‘Shelley’ to the Faceparty management.

These revelations made Brian Pead an extremely dangerous man, but not because he is any kind of sex offender. He was extremely dangerous to the police for altogether different reasons and Marcia Weise had been quick to spot what it was.

At this point, she asked for the interview to be stopped. She wanted time to speak with her client.

“Brian, I can see exactly what’s happened here,” she began. “You’re clearly not a paedophile because I’ve met many through my work and you’re not.”

“I know.”

“But what you’ve done is you’ve out-stung their sting operation and they will be out to get you. Be careful. You’re highly emotional and angry and I understand all of that, but believe me, be careful. You’ve seen what they’ve been up to and they will be out to get you. Calm it.”

Knowing what he knows now, at that point he would have told the police nothing more, making a ‘No Further Comment’ interview.

But he continued to allow himself to become engaged in further questioning and gave the police information which they were eventually to twist round into some form of prosecution and with which they were able to turn people against him.

 The golden rule is “Never talk to the Police”. For more information on this matter, you are invited to visit ‘The Anti-Terrorist’ on YouTube and watch his series of informative videos.

Brian had been arrested at 7.30am that morning and he was not released until 8.30pm. This is another tactic used by the police – keep a suspect waiting, keep him ‘sweating’, make him doubt himself, keep him enclosed in a cell and so on.

He was released without charge and bailed – with no conditions – to appear at Charing Cross police station the following month whilst the police ‘continued with their inquiries’. Brian knew this meant that they wanted to buy more time, not because they wanted to investigate any further, but because they wanted to cause as much disruption to his life as possible, keep him busy and try to ensure that he forgot about his appeal against Lambeth Council.

Brian had given a truthful account of his activities on Faceparty and MSN.

At 8:36pm, Brian was given a Police Bail Notice prepared by Police Sergeant Woods (P190770). The notice read:

“…Alleged offence: Offender of any age cause/ incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration – SOA 2003…”

This was unusual for a number of reasons. At no time had Brian been asked throughout his lengthy interviews on this day about any form of sexual activity with anyone under 13. This was news to him. Furthermore, it is usual to note which particular section of the Sexual Offences Act (the SOA) which the allegation (or later a charge) refers to. Here, no particular section of the Act had been referred to.

It should also be noted – because it is vitally important to note it – that the allegation was that Brian Pead had allegedly caused or incited a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity. The phrase ‘under 13’ has legal ramifications. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers all manner of offences relating to sex as its names suggests. However, it divides the offences into two distinct categories, those perpetrated against adults and those against children. In respect of those against children, it further sub-divides offences into two categories: those perpetrated against children from the ages of 0-13 and those against children aged between 14 and 16. The legal penalties for offences against children under 13 are more severe than those for 14-16 year olds. The authors do not include here the stigma attached to such crimes perpetrated against those under 13 (or, indeed, those against 14-16 year olds) but focus only on the legal aspects.

What should also be recorded and noted is that Brian Pead had never engaged in any sexual activity with anyone under 13. He had never spoken to anyone of that age and never met anyone of that age. A discerning reader might now be thinking that Brian was being linked to this particular age-group in a further attempt to defame him. He had just spent many hours in the interview room where neither DC Godfrey nor DS Tunn ever mentioned anything to do with under 13-year-olds. [Authors’ note: We have read the transcripts of those interviews and 13 year olds are never mentioned.] Their entire focus had been to trawl for information, and part of that particular fishing expedition had mentioned Brian’s encounters with ‘Shelley’ – the alleged 14-year-old. So this reference to an under-13 year old made no sense whatsoever.

From the police perspective, however, it served a purpose. It would make Brian’s family, friends and work colleagues recoil in horror and – in the event that they needed to jail him – his sentence would be greatly increased. For those readers of this book who doubt that the police act in this cunning way, we refer them to the Hillsborough Disaster, in which many innocent people lost their lives, and, as they lay dead in the makeshift mortuary, the police were looking into the Police National Computer (PNC) to see if the victims of their incompetence had any ‘form’ and they also took blood samples from the innocent victims to see if they had raised levels of alcohol in their blood. The victims were, of course, dead and unable to object or protest at such inhumane and degrading treatment. This is the police force of England and Wales as we know it today.     

It is worth mentioning at this point the Custody Record Front Sheet in relation to Brian’s arrest. It provides the reason for his arrest as “Sexual offences. Other (soliciting child to commit sexual act)”. Notice that he was supposedly arrest at 07:22 that same morning for unspecified inappropriate activity on the internet. Note that no age is provided for ‘the child’ and that the alleged ‘sexual act’ is not specified. These are significant breaches of protocol. It is tantamount to arresting someone for murder where there is no body and the name, age or gender of the alleged deceased person are not mentioned either.

The Custody Record sheet describes the circumstances of Brian’s arrest: “…The DP [detained person] has been interacting on the internet with a young child in inappropriate (sic) manner. Warrant executed and further evidence found. Arrested for p&ei…”

No evidence of this alleged inappropriate interaction with a young child had ever been produced during the hours of interview. Note, also, that no age is mentioned here – just the term ‘a young child’. Notice that there is no attempt to describe the alleged ‘inappropriate manner’ of the alleged interactions. And notice that the Custody Record claims that ‘further evidence’ of such activity was found at Brian’s address and removed. Notice, too, that he was arrested to assist police with their enquiries.

This was all a scam. His investigations into child abuse at Lambeth and his investigations into Faceparty had brought him to the attention of the police as a ‘person of interest’.

They needed an excuse to arrest him and to search his property because they were not aware of the full extent of his research. They also needed an excuse to defame him and cast doubt upon his research. The police thus decided to raid his home with a film crew in attendance. (This has the effect of causing shock and awe in his immediate neighbourhood. They spread rumours about a suspect and try to be seen as doing a ‘good job’ in the ‘war against child molesters’. They arrest an innocent man – who has, in fact, been aware of their illegal activity on the internet – and they frame him. They distract him and they provide him with a great deal of paperwork which means his focus will be taken off the employment tribunal appeal in respect of Lambeth Council.)

The Custody Record sheet also provides useful information as to the real police motives in this matter. In the ‘Reasons for Detention’ box, the following was inserted:

“…To secure or preserve evidence. To obtain evidence by questioning…”

Given that the police had unlawfully searched Brian’s house, and given that they had taken away a van load of material including six computers from his house, there was no further need to ‘secure or preserve evidence’ since it was already in the possession of the police. That reason can therefore be discounted.

“To obtain evidence by questioning” is an open-ended and meaningless statement. Since he was not charged, the police had clearly not gathered any evidence that was worthy of a charge. The transcripts of the interviews show that much of the ‘questioning’ was not focused on any alleged interactions with a fake 14-year-old girl, but rather on his knowledge of Faceparty and the police activity there. Technically, he had been incarcerated unlawfully. It was a ruse simply to find out what he knew. 

 Just before he left the police station he asked to call his daughter, Sorrel Pead. He got through and the conversation went like this:

“Dad, what the fuck is going on?”

“Well, I need your support on this, Sorrel.”

“But Dad, a Julia Godfrey called me earlier and told me you’re a paedophile.”

“Well, I’m not as you know – at least I hope you know – but it’s part of their game. You must do whatever is right for you. But I am asking you now to support me on this.”

“Yeah, but there was that business at Lambeth, too. I can’t make sense of it all.”

“Look, I have to go now. Come and see me tomorrow or something. Let’s talk. But I will say just this – that I am innocent, just as I was at Lambeth and I am asking you for your support on this. Give my love to the children and say ‘Hi’ to Paul. Take care, love you.”

As he left the police station, he remembered that the police had not returned his mobile phone, so he asked Marcia Weise to call his daughter and put her mind at ease. He told her what the police had said to his daughter and Marcia replied, “Yeah, that sounds about right. They try to turn everybody against you. That’s what they do. We see it every day in our job.” She said that she was on her way to a family gathering but she would try to call. In the event, she didn’t.

Brian made his way home to Days Lane in Sidcup from Charing Cross, arriving home around 10pm.

His entire life was unravelling before him. As he climbed into bed, he thought about Off Centre and his clients. He thought about his daughter and his grand-children. He has what he calls the ‘gratitude attitude’. Each night before he goes to sleep he thanks the Universe for providing him certain people and certain events in his life – his blessings. He thanked God for providing him with his daughter and three beautiful grand-children whom he was very close to. He was on one level unconcerned about the events of the day because he knew himself to be innocent and he also knew that these events had entered into his life to test his character and resolve and to develop him as a human being. He was unaware, of course, of just how bad things were to get for him.  

21

 On Thursday 5 June 2008, Brian went to work at Off Centre. He was called into a meeting with Nicola Noone, the Administrative Director, and John Hilton, the Clinical Director from the USA. He took his partner and colleague Maya Walker into the meeting and asked her to make notes.

The meeting was completely unlawful. Nicola Noone dominated the proceedings and John Hilton played an extremely minor role.

Brian was handed a copy of the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure. He studied it. His situation did not fit any of the criteria for suspending an employee.

“…Off Centre

Disciplinary & Grievance Procedures

Hackney Young People’s Counselling, Advice & Information Service

Disciplinary Procedures Introduction

a) The Disciplinary Procedure exists to ensure that problem areas in work are solved as quickly and with as much assistance and fairness as possible.

b) This procedure will apply to all members of staff employed by Off Centre.

c) Disciplinary action will be taken where an Employee’s work, conduct or action warrants such a measure.

d) Certain types of Gross Misconduct may lead to summary dismissal. The ‘test’ of Gross Misconduct is as follows:

In light of the individual’s action and his or her explanation for it, can the employer reasonably allow the continued presence of the individual at Off Centre?

Such Gross Misconduct may include, for example:

·           theft/fraud

·           action endangering life and limb

·           non accidental damage or destruction of Off Centre’s or Clients’ property

·           intentional breach of confidentiality for the employee’s benefit

·           deliberate breach of the equal opportunities policy

e) In such cases where Gross Misconduct may lead to summary dismissal the Employee will normally be suspended with pay whilst the case is investigated.

f) An Employee will remain on existing Terms and Conditions of Employment until the resolution of the Appeals under the following procedure…”

Brian was suspended, yet he had not even been charged. He told Nicola Noone exactly what he had told the police – that he had last been on the internet at his friend Geoffrey Bacon’s house and that he had always known the alleged 14-year-old was not a teenager but an adult, and that Nicola Noone should call Geoffrey Bacon to confirm this. He gave her Geoffrey Bacon’s address and telephone numbers (mobile and landline).

Brian and Maya Walker met in the nearby park at lunchtime to discuss the meeting. The Slovenian agreed that the suspension had been unlawful. However, she made it known that she needed to keep her job as she had just moved house and wanted to continue to provide for her son. This need was soon to have dire consequences for Brian as she later abandoned him.

Since he had not been charged by the police, Brian ought not to have been suspended at all. He had not engaged with any under-aged people on the internet, he had not committed any offence and he was not a danger to any client. Why, then, had he been suspended?

The answer may lie in the fact that at the time Brian was unlawfully suspended, Off Centre was part-funded by the Metropolitan Police and Hackney Council.

In the event, a second meeting was scheduled for 13 June 2008 – a day after Brian’s 55^th birthday.

That evening, he returned home with Maya Walker. They were both exhausted and they went to bed very early, to try to make up for lost sleep.

However, almost as soon as they had got into bed, his daughter called round. He looked out of his bedroom window and saw her on the front driveway. “Get down here you fucking pervert!” she shouted. She was clearly in an emotional state and being so tired, he felt that he would have preferred to have spoken with her the following day, but her tone and attitude were such that he felt obliged to at least listen to what she had to say.

Maya and Brian went downstairs and opened the door to Sorrel who told her father that a neighbour had called her and invited her round ‘for a chat’. The neighbour was Susan Ann Pool of 91 Days Lane, Sidcup. She was a divorcée who only occasionally lived at the house with her son, John, and daughter, Sarah. Brian had tried to be a friendly neighbour and he was often called upon to sign their passport photos and other legal documents, being a Head Teacher and a man without a criminal record. He had also once removed a live pigeon from Mrs Pool’s fireplace. Brian had moved into Days Lane in December 1989, and the Pools had moved in a few months earlier. Her husband, John, was also a teacher and around the same age as Brian and the two men got along very well and would often go jogging together.

As can happen, one day John Pool senior found himself another woman and left the marital home. His former wife became very entrenched in her hatred of men and extremely bitter. Whenever Brian went into his back garden, Mrs Pool would engineer a situation where she would also find a reason to go into her back garden and they would talk over the fence. But Brian became more and more wary of the woman who wanted nothing more than to speak ill of her former husband. Brian did not want to get involved.

He learnt that she was asked to seek counselling through her work at Ernst and Young. As a counsellor himself, he felt that his neighbour was fixated on revenge towards her former husband. He also became alarmed when he could hear her shouting at her children at the top of her voice and it appeared as though she was ‘losing it’ in front of her children. For much of the week she and her two children would live with her former husband’s parents – the children’s grand-parents – and Brian secretly preferred this arrangement because he did not have to deal with (in his professional opinion) his unbalanced neighbour.

At a party for Brian’s 40^th, she made advances towards him, but he rejected them. He saw her as a lonely woman – which he could empathise with – but also as a bitter person who constantly went on about ‘the other fucking woman’. She could swear more readily than a boatload of sailors.

Brian tried to remain friendly, but he also wanted to keep his distance from a woman who appeared to be extremely needy and unfulfilled. She hardly ever went out and she appeared to have no friends.

She also appeared to be jealous of the relationship that Brian originally had with his daughter and also had with his grand-children.

Thus, after the events of 4 June 2008 when Brian’s house had been the subject of an unlawful search and he had been arrested but not charged, Susan Pool called Sorrel Pead and asked her round ‘for a chat’.   

That in itself might not be that remarkable, but it actually was because neither Brian nor Sorrel had given Susan Pool her number. It was not listed in the book, being ex-directory. So the question has to be asked: How did Susan Pool obtain that number?

The only viable answer is that she was given it by the police. It has now transpired that she is a paid police informant, but this was not known at the time.

She invited the distraught Sorrel in, plied her with copious amounts of tea and biscuits and proceeded to tell Brian’s daughter that her father had had a ‘string of under-aged girls’ at his house, including a ‘Thai bride’ and ‘only last week a twelve-year-old girl was seen at your father’s house’ by Sarah Pool, the daughter.

This was told to Brian and Maya by Sorrel.

At this point, Maya Walker asked which day this alleged 12-year-old girl had visited Brian’s house and upon being told “last Saturday”, Maya reported, “Well, that 12-year-old girl was me. I was here all day with your dad. I know I’m small, but I’m 36, not twelve.”

This appeared to calm Sorrel down a little. She had begun to listen to reason, but then her partner, Paul, arrived. He was also in an extremely heightened emotional state and started shouting at Brian. “You should go down on your hands and knees and BEG your daughter’s forgiveness!”

“And why would I do that when I haven’t done anything wrong?”

“That’s not what she said next door and it’s not what the police have told us!” he shouted back.

“And you believe all those idiots?”

“Well, what else are we supposed to believe? You’ve been arrested by the paedophile police, so they wouldn’t arrest you without a very good reason.”

And in that single sentence, Brian knew that these two – his daughter and her partner – would not be supporting him. He knew that it was a lost cause. His daughter and her partner believed a neighbour who had had ten years of counselling and still could not come to terms with her former husband’s departure from the marital home and they believed the police, not understanding that the police have a very different agenda from the one they distribute via the usual media of newspapers and the television.

Brian knows that some people are creatures of raw emotion. They are reactive and not pro-active. They are told something and react to it accordingly. They lack the intellectual capacity to challenge what they are told, to conduct research and to discern what is reasonable from what is unreasonable. Thus, a woman who at this time had known her father for 34 years, was prepared to throw away all what she knew about him on the basis of a (police informant) neighbour who had suffered with emotional difficulties over a period of more than a decade and the police who had their own reasons to defame Brian Pead based on his research and investigations into the Faceparty website and based on his uncovering corruption within Lambeth Council.

At one point in the conversation, Sorrel had threatened to “put a brick through your fucking window”. This to her own father. The police must have thought that they had hit the jackpot when they discovered Susan Pool, Sorrel Pead and her partner, Paul Birch, who fixed gearboxes in vehicles used by the Metropolitan Police.

Perhaps one of Brian’s flaws in his character is that he doesn’t suffer fools gladly. At no point did either his daughter or her partner ever ask to see any evidence that Brian had in support of his version of events. They relied entirely on sightings of police ‘evidence’, without ever questioning or challenging whether the evidence was genuine.

Rightly or wrongly, Brian Pead fails to engage with such people, believing that if they lack the intellectual capacity to challenge such nonsense and actually give it energy, then he cannot be bothered with such people. Perhaps he should be more patient, but he finds it difficult to be patient with people who fail to listen or discern. He does not have much time for people who make rash judgments.