On 19 April 2007, Brian Pead was interviewed by Cathy Twist, the investigating officer for Lambeth, for the first time. Pead took along Alex Passman, an Employment lawyer.
Twist at first refused to allow the presence of Alex Passman because he was not a bona fide GMB union representative and Pead was not a member of the GMB. However, both Brian and Passman argued that the latter was an employment law specialist and, as such, the Head teacher was entitled to seek assistance from just such a person in what was, after all, an employment law situation. Twist reluctantly allowed Passman to continue.
At the end of a long day, Passman and the Head teacher de-briefed in a local coffee house. Passman told Brian that he was being set up, and that Lambeth were likely to find him guilty. Twist didn’t allow any of Passman’s rebuttals to the allegations and the lawyer said that this was absolute nonsense, adding that there was something incredibly strange about this case.
Despite Brian presenting Cathy Twist with robust evidence demonstrating that not only was he innocent of the charges against him, but also that Murray had authored the report after he had dismissed her for grooming young girls and racism towards young black male pupils, Twist dismissed all of Brian’s claims. The investigation process was drawn out and in July 2007 he attended four separate Disciplinary Hearings, the final one being on 30 July.
On 31 July 2007, Brian received a letter from Judith Hare, Chairwoman of the Disciplinary Panel, in which it stated that he was guilty of ten of the 14 charges against him. Between the investigation process and the disciplinary process, the charge relating to alleged masturbation in the theatre was mysteriously dropped with no reasons being provided to the Head teacher.
Brian knew that he had been set up – just as employment law specialist Alex Passman had predicted. He appealed the decision and an Appeal committee was established, headed by John Readman, now with Hull Council.
This was yet another re-run of the two previous processes. Brian demonstrated that he could not be guilty of the allegations against him, but he lost the appeal.
He then decided to take Lambeth Council to an Employment Tribunal. He was given a date of 14 January 2008 – some two years after he had been unlawfully suspended.
In September 2007, whilst still undertaking his counselling course at CPPD, a house was sold at 62 Days Lane, Sidcup. This house was on the opposite side of the road from Brian’s house, but not directly opposite. It was at an angle of approximately 22.5°. A family had previously lived there for almost 15 years, but moved away into the country.
Brian and his neighbours noticed that four females had moved into the property. They appeared to be aged around 20-25.
Again, Brian noticed that this seemed somewhat odd. The property had been a family home for decades and had suddenly become a ‘buy-to-let’ when such properties were not bringing people the returns they often hoped for.
What became even more odd was that the female in the front bedroom would often close the curtains at one window at night and yet leave the curtains open on the other window. Looking from Brian’s house, the open curtains were at the left-hand window.
Brian was in the process of a complete refurbishment of his house which included a new flat roof and so he had scaffolding erected which covered the entire front of the wide property. Three of the scaffold poles and a ladder ran in front of Brian’s bedroom window which was also at the front of the house.
His bedroom window was directly opposite a concrete pathway leading from the street to the Community Centre of the Holy Redeemer Church in Days Lane, which came under the guidance of the Reverend Nicholas Kerr. The Community Hall was used at all hours of the day and night.
Since Brian’s front bedroom was the only clean room in the house during the refurbishment which included taking down every ceiling, removing every floor and knocking down and creating walls, he would retire to his bedroom to occasionally watch television whilst sitting on his bed.
On one occasion, whilst looking at the television, he noticed out of the corner of his eye a light come on in an upstairs room in the house at 62 Days Lane.
He noticed that the curtains were closed to the right window, but that they remained open on the left-hand window. A man such as Brian Pead – who was reading the Warren Commission report into the assassination of President Kennedy at the age of 11 – was drawn to this anomaly. Who would do such a thing? If you have gone to the trouble of closing the curtains at one window, why would you not close the curtains at the next window, especially as only three feet of wall separated the two windows in that bedroom?
As such thoughts went through his mind he noticed the female start to sway her body as if she was a stripper. She ran her fingers through her hair and over her breasts and began to undress.
Again, Brian Pead noticed this odd behaviour. His initial reaction was that this was some form of ‘show’ for the young men who lived at 87 Days Lane, next to Brian’s house and almost directly opposite the students’ house. Glen and Jenny Meeking had three eligible sons (and a daughter) aged between 20 -25.
Brian’s initial hypothesis was that this was simply a ‘show’ to draw their attention to this female.
He thought no more of this oddity until about a week later when the same kind of show was repeated. Being something of an analyst and a builder, he began to work out that the young men at 87 Days Lane would not be able to see these ‘shows’ because the window directly opposite their house had its curtains closed, and because the female always stood inside her bedroom at an angle facing Brian’s house.
As bizarre as it sounded, it occurred to him that this 20-something was putting on ‘shows’ for this 50-something. She became increasingly brazen, stripping off her clothes and then dressing again. Her actions were not simply those of someone taking off one outfit and then putting on another before going out. Her actions were a deliberate ‘show’, and appeared to be designed to entice Brian into some kind of reaction.
This was precisely at the time that he was reading a good deal about psycho-sexual matters as part of his Advanced Diploma in Humanistic Integrative counselling course at CPPD and also at the same time that he was looking closely at a website known as Faceparty.com.
Brian mentioned the odd pattern with the curtains to a neighbour, Ellen Stanley, who lived next door to the Meekings at 85 Days Lane. A widow of approximately 70 years, she and Brian got along very well and he often found her unemployed grand-son, Brett, some work at his house. ‘Nellie’ as she was known, told Brian that she had noticed the odd pattern with the curtains over a period of weeks and that she had also noticed many different men ‘coming and going’ in and out of the house. She had also said that she had once seen ‘a gun’ being held by someone up in the window, but that she wasn’t sure if it was just a prop for a show of some kind.
Brian consulted with the Reverend Nicholas Kerr who lived in the Vicarage next to the church. Nicholas Kerr confirmed that the students had had to be spoken to about their behaviour and late night parties.
Brian mentioned this to Glen Meeking at 87 Days Lane, and he confirmed that he, too, had seen many different men coming and going and that the females often held late-night parties.
In October 2007, Brian wrote a note to the female in the upstairs bedroom. He thought long and hard about the tone of such a note, since he did not want to cause distress at all, but merely to draw the female’s attention to the fact that she could be seen undressing at the window in the event that she was not aware of the fact.
He posted the note through the door one evening and left his name, address and mobile telephone number, should the female need to discuss the matter.
Brian felt that that would be the end of the matter. How wrong he was!
The incidences increased. The curtains remained closed to the right-hand window and open on the left-hand window.
As is his wont, Brian concluded that the female, whom he later learned was known as Elizabeth McIntyre, must have some form of narcissistic personality disorder in which she needed the attention of men by undressing in front of them or flaunting herself to them. He is not a man to judge, but merely to understand.
What had previously been a weekly or fortnightly occurrence became an almost nightly occurrence. To Brian’s mind, this did not make sense. He believed that almost any female, upon being told that she could be seen from the road whilst undressing, would simply close the curtains each time. But, night after night, whether there was a ‘show’ or not, the curtains would remain open at one window and closed at the other.
The ‘shows’, which commenced in September 2007 continued as Christmas merged into the New Year. Paralleling these displays was Brian’s continued investigation into the activity on Faceparty website and his reading and studies on the Advanced Diploma course.
On 9 January 2008, Brian commenced employment as a qualified counsellor at Off Centre in Hackney, east London. He had passed the Enhanced Disclosure element of the Criminal Records Bureau checks. The post was for 3 days a week: Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. His hours were to be between 10am and 6pm with the exception of Tuesdays when he would work from midday until 8pm. Christine Mead, the Interim Manager at Off Centre added, “…I am so pleased you are joining us…”
She had previously called him to provide feedback after his interview in December, and stated that she and Nicola Noone had “felt extremely comfortable” around him, that he was suitably qualified and possessed a good deal of life experience which would prove invaluable in his post as a counsellor.
One of the features of this entire story is the large number of people who – upon encountering Brian Pead – speak of his ‘obvious’ intelligence, his friendliness and the fact that they regard him as a ‘genuine person’. Strangely, they were only too ready to deny their own instincts about him, however, when the police concocted the story that he is a sex offender in an attempt to discredit him and his research.
In the UK today, it is relatively easy for the police to create documents or photographs which ‘prove’ to people they are trying to manipulate that the person they are discussing is a ‘sex offender’ – a label which includes females and teenagers. A teenaged boy of 16 who sleeps with his underaged girlfriend is, in law, a sex offender. That both parties might well believe that they are in love is immaterial in the eyes of the law, so determined is the British government to create hundreds of ‘sex offenders’ for political reasons.
A man of any age who rapes his wife is also a ‘sex offender’.
With knowledge gained from his cases, Brian Pead firmly believes that he can produce documents, create websites and blogs, a Twitter account and destroy a person’s comfortable existence within 24 hours by ‘proving’ that the person is a ‘sex offender’.
The UK Government and the Police have secret agenda which uses ‘sex offending’ as a means of social control. By ensuring that most decent families are constantly looking over their shoulder amidst concerns about ‘the guy next door’, the Government and the Police are free to perpetrate crimes themselves, rob families of taxes, reduce unemployment benefit and basically keep families fearing the worst and keep the focus of their attention away from the wrong-doing by MPs and Police. While families are busy trying to maintain a home, keep their children safe and put food on the table, all manner of crimes are perpetrated by Government, local authorities and the Police – all agencies of the State which are there – allegedly – to support families.
On 14 January 2008 Brian travelled to the South London Employment Tribunal in West Croydon. He represented himself. Lambeth arrived with a barrister and a phalanx of council executives, fourteen in all. This in itself taught him a lot. He knew that Lambeth Council would not be sending so many executives without reason. By sending such a large number, Lambeth were showing that they were rattled by Brian’s claims against them.
In representing himself, Brian’s opening submission was that the case centred on Murray’s dismissal for racism and the grooming of female pupils.
At this point, the Judge – Mrs Anne Martin – called a halt to the proceedings (without saying why) and arranged a new date (25 February 2008) some six weeks hence.
It was clear to Brian and his friends who knew about the case that these issues were at the core of Lambeth’s concerns.
On the evening of 14 January 2008, Brian returned home and went online. He was sent a request on MSN and randomly added the person – an occurrence which happened on a relatively regular basis.
Little did he know at the time how important that random act was to prove in his life.
On 28 January 2008, the person whom had been added as a contact on 14 January contacted Brian at 16:13:30. It is important to note here who was doing the chasing. It was a person purporting to be a 14-year-old girl. ‘She’ had just been in a chatroom and randomly asked for money for sex, stating that ‘she’ was 14.
This immediately drew Brian’s attention. Other members of the chatroom asked how could she really be 14 if the Terms and Conditions on the website clearly and unequivocally stated that no-one under 16 could access it. Other people told her to ‘leave if you are really 14 and accessed your mum or dad’s account.’ Yet others wanted to ‘smoke her out’. Someone suggested it was the police. The alleged 14-year-old left an email address and a few people added ‘her’ on MSN, including Brian.
One or two people asked this person what she was doing claiming to provide sex for money. This was not, it must be stated, to procure any sexual services, but to merely understand what on earth was going on. Brian was amongst this small group of people who asked such questions.
Asking questions of someone purporting to be a teenager offering sex in return for money is an entirely different proposition from actually asking a real teenager for sex in return for money.
Within just a few minutes of the conversation on MSN having begun, Brian called upon all his instincts gathered over more than half a century. He intuitively felt that this was most definitely not a teenager and not even a female. At this point he believed it to be an adult male, probably middle-aged.
It is a common phenomenon in counselling that a counsellor will ‘play along’ with a client’s story in order to build confidence in the working relationship. Sometimes, this ‘playing along’ will last for several weeks or even months, until such times as the counsellor feels that the client is emotionally robust enough to have his or her story challenged. Brian understood that it was bad practice to undermine a client’s story or belief system until there was something solid to replace it with. One consequence of poor practice could be the cause of a breakdown in the client.
Brian’s father had taught him as a very young man that “…If you give ’em enough rope they will hang themselves…” and with these strands in his mind, he began smoking out this person. He was deep into research into child sexual abuse, and his instincts told him that this was not a teenager and, if not a teenager, then what was this person’s ‘game’? What was he (or she) trying to achieve by entering an adult website and claiming to be a teenager after money for sexual favours?
Brian found this encounter odd for a number of reasons. Firstly, he could not understand how a real 14-year-old girl could access the website when the Faceparty management clearly stated in its Terms and Conditions that no-one under 16 could become a member.
Secondly, it had not been lost on him that when he had previously attended the Employment Tribunal on 14 January, he had been given the email address of the person who had now contacted him claiming to be an under-aged teen.
Nor was it lost on him that this was appearing to mirror the allegations in Murray’s report.
The person claiming to be a teenaged girl first contacted Brian on 28 January 2008, just five days before he attended a weekend course on child sexual abuse. This topic was firmly in his mind due, in the main, to his own abuse and also to the reading material on the Advanced Diploma course which had a distinct bias towards the psychosexual element of counselling.
It became almost immediately obvious to Brian on 28 January 2008 that the person claiming to be a 14-year-old girl was not, in fact, a girl at all but an adult claiming to be a teenager. Having studied at great length the mind-set of sex offenders, he knew that posing as a teenager was a common ploy of such offenders.
There were several reasons why Brian knew that this alleged ‘girl’ was an adult.
No comments:
Post a Comment