THE TRUTH ABOUT BRIAN PEAD part 8

11
At this point in the story, it would be sensible to pause and reflect on Brian Pead’s life.
By 1 April 2008, he had just completed and passed his Advanced Diploma in Humanistic Integrative Counselling at CPPD. He had received a Distinction for his Case Study of ‘Jemima’.
He had applied for the post of Group Therapist at Off Centre. He had delivered Staff Training to both Off Centre and Sub19 staff.
He was regularly attending self-improvement talks at Inner Space in London (sometimes twice a week) and he was also attending Psychodrama in London.
He was busy on the refurbishment of his house in Sidcup. Often working alone, and sometimes working with a builder friend, Geoffrey Bacon, or another friend, firefighter David Cox from Lee Green fire station in Kent, walls were knocked down, new walls built, a brand new kitchen fitted and a downstairs shower room and toilet added. It was a major undertaking. He was filling a skip practically every week. Throughout the period from September 2007 (when the females moved in at 62 Days Lane) to this present time, scaffolding clad the entire front of the house.
His grand-son, Joseph Birch, just approaching his second birthday, was becoming increasingly active and acquiring a good command of language for someone of his age. Brian continued to be actively involved in the lives of his grand-daughters, Emily and Lauren. He had, in fact, been actively involved in their lives on an almost weekly basis since their births.
He had recently commenced a relationship with Maya Walker, a 36-year-old Slovenian colleague at Off Centre who had an eleven-year-old son. Maya Walker happened to have a petite frame. This seemingly innocuous fact was to be used against Brian Pead at a later date.
He was continuing to monitor the Faceparty shenanigans, which were also being monitored by other responsible citizens and members of the website.
He had engaged in four conversations with the person alleging to be a 14-year-old female. The first contact was on 28 January 2008 in a Faceparty chatroom and then the dialogue moved to MSN.
Two further conversations occurred on 7 February and 25 February 2008.
In these conversations, he had provided three false mobile telephone numbers. He had never discussed meeting a 14-year-old for sex. He had never believed that the person was a 14-year-old. He had believed that he was dealing with an adult who was attempting to pass off as a teenager.
No contact had been made between Brian and the other party throughout March - hardly the action of someone interested in meeting someone for sex!
70 Framed!
With full internet access at Off Centre and Sub19, he decided to save a little money to spend on his refurbishment by ceasing the BT internet connection. Again, this is hardly the action of someone interested in meeting people for sex on the internet as the police were later to claim.
He was, as always, reading avidly. His life was full. Yet the angst in respect of his wrongful dismissal from Lambeth and the farcical Employment Tribunal hearings continued to eat at him.

12
He did not receive a response from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, so he wrote again on 30 April 2008:
“…I refer to my letter of 26 March 2008.
Regrettably, I have not received your reply to this letter and I am most concerned that my original letter has not been responded to, particularly with the time limit imposed upon one’s ability to appeal.
In that letter, I stated that I wished to bring an Appeal, and I asked for more information with regard to the Appeal process.
Please take this letter as my (second) formal notification of my wish to appeal…”
Unsurprisingly, given the determined but respectful tone of his second letter, he did not receive a reply.
He then composed a third letter dated 8 May 2008 which he then decided to deliver personally to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which he did.
It would have been clear to the authorities that Brian felt strongly aggrieved that he had been dismissed by Lambeth Council and that he felt strongly that the Employment Tribunal hearing at the South London Employment Court in West Croydon had done him a great disservice.
He was not a man to be deterred and he wanted justice.

13
Having received no response from the Employment Appeal Tribunal [EAT] to his letter of 30 April 2008, he therefore typed out a third letter dated 8 May 2008. He took a train from New Eltham station in Kent to Charing Cross and walked briskly along the Victoria Embankment on a mild day.
The letter read:
“…I refer to my previous letters.
Please accept this letter as my intention to appeal. I have applied for an Appeal within the 42 day time limit since the judgment was sent to me. I did not receive notification back from the EAT after my initial correspondence.
Please advise me of the next steps I have to take to execute this Appeal…”
It is clear that Brian was determined not to let the fiasco at Lambeth rest until he received justice. It is also clear that he had researched the limitation period open to him to launch an appeal, and it is clear that his resolve was such that he took matters into his own hands by travelling into London from the Sidcup suburbs in order to ensure that his Appeal was received.
He entered the building, handed in the letter and obtained a receipt for the letter, with a date, time and signature. This is his customary practice.
Since the debacle of 25 February 2008 in which he informed the Employment Tribunal judge – Mrs Anne Martin - of Maryn Murray’s grooming of female pupils, her bullying and her racism, he had been forced to write three letters to the EAT in order to obtain justice.
He had not received a reply. Someone, he and his friends felt, was orchestrating this unusual set of circumstances.
Someone did not want this Appeal to be heard.
That ‘someone’ could only have been linked to his unlawful dismissal from Lambeth Council.

14
In April 2008, Brian was successful in his application for the post of Group Therapist at Off Centre and he was delighted, since he saw his long-term future as a group therapist and author on his therapeutic encounters with clients and his research into the issue of child sexual abuse and its lifelong impact on survivors.
His BT internet connection at home was ceased. His laptop had finally ‘died’ altogether. He had taken it to a computer repair shop in Welling High Street where he was told that it would cost more to repair than a new laptop.
Brian’s relationship with petite colleague Maya Walker was slowly progressing and on Sunday 5 May 2008, she visited Days Lane. They watched a film on television, both sitting on his bed.
Elizabeth McIntyre – the girl in the upstairs bedroom at 62 Days Lane – started to put on another of her ‘shows’, undressing and running her hands through her hair and over her breasts and hips.
Brian mentioned this strange occurrence to his lover and asked her to watch the dancing and stripping off and come to some conclusions about it from (a) her female perspective and (b) wearing her counsellor’s hat.
Maya Walker watched and saw McIntyre undressing and dancing rhythmically in her bedroom. She put forward the view that the young woman was a narcissist and that she knew she was being watched. Walker also suggested that McIntyre might be the victim of sexual abuse since she was so desperate to be seen and admired by men.
Brian asked her whether she thought McIntyre was dancing for the young men next door or for him. Looking at the angles, and the odd pattern with the curtains, Walker suggested that the dancing and the stripping must have been for him. Brian asked her to make a note of their conversation and the dancing in her diary.
On 7 May 2008, Brian was in agony – it felt that he had broken his big toe on his right foot. Off Centre was having a ‘Clearout Day’ in which all of the offices and staff room and kitchen were cleared out of accumulated junk. Despite the agony, and wearing sandals because he could not bear to wear socks and shoes, he attended work.
It is important to note that on the evening of 7 May 2008, Brian was in no mood for anything other than to lie down and take the weight off his painful foot. His big toe had swollen considerably and was extremely sore and red.
On Thursday 8 May 2008, he went to Accident and Emergency at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup where a diagnosis of gout was made by a nurse and added to his medical records at the Barnard Medical Centre.

From the hospital, he caught a bus to Chislehurst, to meet with his friend Geoffrey Bacon.
With the pain-killers that he had been prescribed bringing some immediate relief, he alighted the bus just yards from his friend’s house.
Arriving at his friend’s house, the two men exchanged some banter about Brian having ‘an old man’s disease’.
Geoffrey Bacon is a self-employed builder who has been cleared by the Home Office to work in royal and governmental buildings, including police stations. His 80-year-old father, Roy, had also been a builder who had similarly been cleared by the Home Office. These were men of great integrity. Despite his advanced years, Roy Bacon was a sharp, intelligent man who had fought for his country and knew the ways of the world.
Geoffrey had a computer in his bedroom which he used for his building work. He used it to type out quotations, maintain records of customer accounts, complete his tax forms and run his business from it.
On Thursday 8 May 2008, Brian briefly went on to his MSN account and his Faceparty account to check emails and messages. There was nothing of note.
The two men continued to discuss the refurbishment of Brian’s house and how to overcome certain problems and Brian left around 10pm. He was working at Off Centre the following day in his role as Group Therapist.
On Thursday 15 May 2008, Brian again visited Geoffrey and Roy Bacon’s house and again he went on to his Faceparty and MSN accounts.
Once he had entered his Faceparty account, almost immediately he received an applet from the person purporting to be the 14-year-old girl.
‘She’ had not been in contact for some two months. ‘She’ tried to arrange a meeting, but Brian was having none of it and he typed: “…You are a fake! Fuck off!...”
As he typed out and spoke aloud those words and then immediately left Faceparty, Geoffrey Bacon, sitting on his bed next to the computer, asked him, “What was all that about, Bri?”
Brian told his friend that he had encountered this person claiming to be a 14-year-old girl. He explained that he initially believed that it was a paedophile attempting to be seen as a teenager. He told Geoffrey that the Faceparty website had been a very good website but over the past 6-9 months, it had rapidly deteriorated. He told his friend that he believed that the police were using it as a website to peddle child pornography and to entrap innocent people.
He told his friend that he seen chatrooms with such names as TeenSluts4OldMen and Cash4Teens.
Brian then told his friend of some 18 years that he had decided never to go on to Faceparty or MSN again.

It is important to note that the ‘girl’ had once again contacted Brian and not the other way around. It is also important to note that he shared his concerns about the Faceparty website with his trusted friend, Geoffrey Bacon. And we must also note that the message from the ‘girl’ was stored on Geoffrey Bacon’s computer.

15
On 19 May, Brian celebrated his grand-son’s birthday – Joe was now 2 years old. Unfortunately, as in most families, there was an undercurrent of tension.
A few years before, after his mother’s death in Oregon, USA, in 1997, Brian made his daughter, Sorrel, aware that she had been named in his mother’s will as being a beneficiary of some £12,000.
His mother had left the money with conditions. Sorrel could not access the money until her 40th birthday. Brian had no involvement in this decision – it had been his mother’s and hers alone.
His mother had also left the same sum of money and the same conditions to the sons of her dead son, Robert, who had died as the result of an accident on board the St. Kitts trawler.
Brian was made an Executor and a beneficiary of his mother’s will. He took the role of Executor of his mother’s will seriously. Now dead, she would be unable to ensure that her wishes were met, and thus relied on Brian to execute her will in accordance with her wishes.
Once he had informed his daughter of the existence of the will, the inheritance and the conditions, Sorrel Pead was unhappy and blamed her father for having imposed the fortieth birthday condition. Brian tried to explain that he had had no input into that decision, but his daughter would not listen. She badgered him to release the money, but Brian explained that he wanted to administer the will according to his mother’s express wishes.
After a period of three or four years, and with two daughters, Sorrel and her partner, Paul Birch, visited Brian’s house in Sidcup and asked for the money so that they could ‘buy a house’ – at the time they were living in a flat in Shooter’s Hill, southeast London.
Brian’s partner was Ann Armin, a former classroom assistant at Gravel Hill Primary School where they met, and Ann was present during this tense meeting.
It was put to Brian that if he did not ‘hand over the money’ then he would not see his grand-daughters again.
Neither he nor Ann could believe what they had just heard. Brian – as is his custom – asked them to repeat their demands. They did. He had not heard them incorrectly.
In the event, despite being a strong person, he gave in to their demands because he did not want to lose his grand-children from his life. He adored them and they adored him.
He worked hard at establishing positive relationships with his grand-daughters and helped to educate and nurture them. He repeated this pattern when Joe was born.

But on each occasion that one of his grand-children had a birthday, Brian would always be invited to attend after everyone else had gone home. He was left with curled sandwiches and dry pieces of cake. It was becoming apparent to him that his daughter and son-in-law saw him as an intruder into their family.
After the tense meeting in which Brian (and Ann) felt that he had been emotionally blackmailed, he sent a letter to his daughter, Sorrel, and to nephews Jason Pead (aka Jay Roberts) and Shaun Pead in which he informed them that he had set aside a Sunday and invited them over to inspect his mother’s will, read it and note the conditions she had set.
In 2001, their ages were 31 (Jay), 29 (Shaun) and 27 (Sorrel). None of them responded to the letter and none of them visited to inspect the will. It was not to be the first time that they would make judgments without examining the evidence.

16
At the time of Brian’s unlawful suspension from Lambeth on 8 December 2006, he was working as a Volunteer Counsellor at the Community Drug Service, South London in Wallington, Surrey. The service was managed by Franco Toma and Michael Bird was the clinical supervisor in charge of overseeing the work of counsellors and volunteer counsellors.
During tea-breaks, or in between clients, Brian told Michael Bird of his troubles at Lambeth, which were, he told his supervisor, based on the fact that he had been forced to dismiss a female teacher for grooming female pupils, racism and bullying.
Michael Bird listened with great interest, but little did he know that he was to play a major part in the story in the coming months and years.

17
On Tuesday 20 May 2008, just as he was preparing to leave for his journey to Hackney, Brian answered a knock at the door around 7.30am. He thought it might be the postman delivering a parcel, but when he opened the door he saw three people – two male police officers and a female officer.
They stated that they wished to ask Brian some questions. Having nothing to hide, he allowed them entry into his house where he was promptly arrested. He had been tricked into this situation.
“Why are you arresting me?” he asked.
“You’re being arrested for indecent exposure and voyeurism.”
He was unnecessarily handcuffed in his own home.
“Why are you handcuffing me?”
“Because you might cause us danger.”
“I’m not going to hurt anybody … please take the cuffs off.”
“No.”
At this point, one officer, whom Brian later discovered was known as Peter Thompson went upstairs to Brian’s bedroom and started taking photographs from his front bedroom window.
“Have you got a search warrant?” asked the indignant Brian.
“I don’t need one. We’ve arrested you. That’s sufficient,” lied Thompson.
“On what authority are you searching my bedroom?”
“We believe you have been using binoculars and other similar equipment to spy on the girls who live opposite at 62 Days Lane,” continued Thompson.
“Well, let me correct you. The girls are not girls. They are all at least in their twenties. Secondly, their house is not opposite. It’s at an acute angle. I have no spying equipment and I am not guilty of any crime. Where is the search warrant? Have you finished searching my bedroom?”
“Yes.”
“So, where are you from and which division?” asked Pead.
“We’re from Bexley Police. The Sapphire Unit.”
As a counsellor and former teacher, Brian knew that each police station had a Sapphire Unit attached to it and that its purpose was to investigate sexual offences.
“The Sapphire Unit?” inquired Brian. “Let me tell you that that’s bollocks because I haven’t committed any sexual offences.”
“Well, you’re coming to the station to be interviewed.”
The unmarked police car took a convoluted route to Bexleyheath Police Station in Arnsberg Way and Brian was asked if he required the assistance of a solicitor.
“I’ve done nothing wrong, so it’s ok.”

It should be noted that were this to occur today, with his increased knowledge of police procedures, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2008 and the judiciary in general, he would not have admitted the police into his house and he would demand that they produce an Arrest Warrant and a Search Warrant. But, at the age of 53, he had never been in trouble with the police and was thus not aware of his Rights.
He had, however, attended the Liverpool v Nottingham Forest FA Cup tie on 15 April 1989 as a Liverpool fan and he had seen how – for almost 20 years – the police had been involved in a high level cover-up of what was so obviously malpractice. But this was 2008 and THE REAL TRUTH had not yet been published about the Hillsborough Disaster.
He was held initially in a police cell – this is the first part of their ‘scare tactics’. Brian Pead is not a man to be intimidated. He put his feet up and rested, awaiting the farce that would inevitably follow.
The first interview commenced at 09:50 and was conducted by PC Jane Sargeant (1782RY) and Detective Constable Saib. The PC led the interview.
Brian was reminded that the reason for his arrest at 07:30 had been for indecent exposure and voyeurism on dates ranging from October 2007 until 18 May 2008 and indecent exposure on 7 May 2008. He was told that an allegation had been made by a “young female neighbour and two other witnesses who live opposite you at number 62 Days Lane”.
Brian remained calm, believing the whole incident to be a complete farce. He listened intently to every word uttered by Sargeant and Saib.
He noted their use of the word ‘young’ in relation to the neighbour, aged around 22. He made a mental note that this word had been used extensively in his unlawful suspension and dismissal at Lambeth. It already seemed to him that this was an extension of the troubles he encountered at Lambeth, and it was not lost on him that this episode was less than three weeks after he had put in his letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (which had still not been responded to).
Brian asked for a pencil and some paper. He asked PC Sargeant to recap the allegations against him.
PC Sargeant: Yes, October 2007 through to 18 May 2008.
Brian Pead: Okay and then you said there was something on 7 May?
PC Sargeant: That’s right, that was the indecent exposure. From October to 18th May, that’s what we class as the voyeurism, where the girl says that you’ve been watching her while she’s been in her bedroom doing private acts in her bedroom. So that’s why you were arrested this morning and you’ve been brought here today so you can tell us your side of the story. So would you like to tell me what you know about what I’ve told you today?
Brian Pead: Well I’m fuming and I’m furious and I think this is bollocks, if you’ll excuse my language. I somehow feel set-up in this and I’m really puzzled by this to be honest because eight months allegedly this has been going on, allegedly, and so consequently that’s an awful long time it seems to me before anyone phoned and made any kind of complaint anyway. So that’s bizarre to me. I have seen the girls from that house in the local stores, the local Co-op round the corner, I see them in the street, nobody has said anything to me before now, which to me seems odd, but never mind that’s their story. There’s clearly some strange dynamic going on here, then, a strange dynamic and I’ve been sitting for the last hour or two trying to work out what that can be because it seems bizarre, really bizarre. Okay I’ll draw you a diagram to explain this, sometimes a picture is a thousand words.
MR PEAD WAS SUPPLIED WITH A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER AND HE DREW TWO WINDOWS, THE VIEW FROM HIS HOUSE.
Brian Pead: I don’t know who’s put in the complaint, you say a young lady from that house has put in a complaint …
PC Sargeant: Well three of them yes, one of the young girls made the complaint first, the allegation, because she feels that you have been watching her, and then two of the girls saw the indecent exposure on 7 May, two of the other girls saw the indecent exposure.
[Authors’ note: notice the police officer’s use of the term ‘young girls’ – these were females aged between 20 and 25. Note how it is a phrase used by those at Lambeth.]
Brian Pead: They say.
PC Sargeant: Yes.
Brian Pead: And they’ve got pictures of this?
PC Sargeant: Only their word, they didn’t take pictures.
Brian Pead: They have mobile phones, web cams and all of that and they didn’t take pictures?
PC Sargeant: Well, no, because they were very shocked by what they saw and when, as they said a person who they don’t really know is stood across from them masturbating naked in the window, their first thought isn’t to take a picture it’s to scream, to close the curtains, see what’s happening and then try ...You tell me what’s happened…
Brian Pead: Okay if that was a real scenario I could understand that yeah, if the young ladies had felt threatened or anything like that I could understand that.
MR PEAD REFERRED BACK TO THE TWO WINDOWS (HE DESCRIBES AS LEFT AND RIGHT). HE SAID HE DOESN’T KNOW THE YOUNG LADY CONCERNED, ONLY THAT SHE IS BLONDE...”
Notice that the typist (called Lynn) spells the word ‘blonde’ correctly unlike the person who was purporting to be a 14-year-old female on Faceparty and MSN.

Returning to the conversation in the police station, Brian Pead has already called the constable on the fact that the females had never taken a single photograph of him over an alleged nine-month period from September 2007 through to May 2008. PC Sargeant tried to avoid his pertinent question by saying that they were ‘afraid’ and ‘screaming’. This is nonsense – the females were surely not afraid or screaming over a period of nine months. Besides, who would wait nine months before taking action, had these incidents really taken place?
Brian felt that this reminded him of Lambeth and the masturbation in the theatre – apparently nobody had bothered to report this alleged incident until after he had had good cause to dismiss the person calling herself Maryn Murray for grooming young females, for bullying and for racism.
Lambeth had failed to respond appropriately or even to respond at all. His appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal also did not receive a response, despite three attempts and now – when he had forced their hand to provide him with an Appeal date - he had been arrested on a trumped-up charge of indecent exposure and voyeurism. It was far too much of a coincidence he, and friends, believed.
Brian went on to draw a picture of the windows at 62 Days Lane as seen from his house, and he patiently explained that he felt that he had been the subject of surveillance from that house.
He explained that the female was not merely ‘changing her clothes’ in the bedroom but actually putting on a deliberate show. He told the police that his initial reaction was that she was performing for the 20-something year old men in the house next to his, at number 87.
PC Sargeant then attempted to manipulate the version of events that Brian was relaying by claiming “…So you’ve been watching her from your window…” to which Brian corrected, “…No, I said I had seen her from time to time which is a very different thing…”
Being something of a linguist, Brian usually always feels the need to correct language where misunderstandings can occur. He did not want to be charged with voyeurism, or be charged at all. He knows that the legal system is built on a foundation of legalese – a ‘restricted code’ - that only a few people are aware of because knowledge is power and those in power do not want those not in power to learn the ‘code’.
The conversation between Brian Pead and PC Sargeant moved on to a discussion of the note that he had put through the door of 62 Days Lane in order to draw the occupant’s attention to the fact that she could be seen (had she not been aware, which is unlikely).
But PC Sargeant, instead of seeing the good intentions of Brian’s note, chose to try to twist the note into some form of perverted communication.
PC Sargeant: Are you trying to say that you weren’t attracted to her great looking and fantastic body?
Brian Pead: Not in that sense, no.
PC Sargeant: Did you find her a turn-on?
Brian Pead: Not in that sense, no.
It was clear to Brian that the police officer had absolutely no intention of listening to his account – she was, of course, looking for a conviction to add to the ‘success rate’ of the Bexley Sapphire Unit.
Although he had been careful to explain that he first thought that Elizabeth McIntyre had been performing shows for the three sons of Glen Meeking, his neighbour at 87 Days Lane, PC Sargeant attempted to claim that Brian had said that McIntyre was putting on shows for his benefit; “…So what made you think that a girl in her twenties … sorry if this sounds rude, would be interested in a man who’s fifty-three/ fifty-four?..”
Brian had never said that he thought that Elizabeth McIntyre was interested in him. He had said that he felt that she – or others – had, in fact, been watching him, or keeping him under surveillance.
PC Sargeant claimed that Elizabeth McIntyre had been ‘distraught’ at receiving the note from Brian Pead, that she had felt ‘dirty’. So dirty in fact that once she had received it, she increased the number of shows and continued to display herself at an open window for several months.
In his research and training, he had learnt that the most common response to a woman feeling thus ‘violated’ would be to withdraw, but McIntyre did not. She increased the frequency of her shows and – more significantly – she kept the note that Brian Pead had sent in her best interests.
It was incomprehensible to him (and his friends) that a woman who felt so violated would keep hold of a note that made her feel traumatised. It occurred to Brian and friends that she had kept that note for a reason. This was sounding more and more like a set-up.
The interview took a farcical and almost surreal tone when PC Sargeant turned to McIntyre’s claims that on 5 May 2008 she had witnessed Brian standing at his bedroom window in the dark. The two houses are almost 100 feet (33 metres) apart, and at an acute angle. It should be remembered that scaffolding completely covered the front of his house. Directly in front of the window at which McIntyre claimed she had seen Brian in the dark were three scaffold poles and just to the left was a scaffold ladder. All of these items would have further obscured her view into his room.
PC Jane Sargeant recounts McIntyre’s statement to Brian:
“…Coming a little bit more recently she says on 5th May 2008 she was in her bedroom sorting out her stuff and she noticed that the light was on in your bedroom, she said the light was always on in your bedroom but sometimes you do turn the light off and you still stand there and she can see a glow of something, maybe a PC or a TV in the room, and she can see it catching the side of her (sic) face and that’s how she knows you’re still looking at her. She said she caught you standing there, you were looking straight at her ... you were staring straight towards her and she could see that your right hand was down the front of your trousers and you were, as she put it, there was movement in the front of your trousers, and that was on 5th May and she says you were staring right at her…”
This was quite a bit of information to absorb under pressure in an interview room without a legal representative present, so Brian asked the PC to repeat what she had just said. She obliged him and added the following:
“…I looked in the direction and he was stood staring straight at me from his window. His face was evil, it was awful, he really scared me ... He was just staring straight at me. I could see his hand was down his trousers. It was his right hand down the front of his trousers and there was movement in the front of his trousers. I was so shocked and scared I closed the curtain straight away...”
One might wonder why McIntyre failed to keep her curtains closed ever since she received the note in October 2007 in which Brian had informed her that she could be seen.
One also has to wonder why the police took this allegation seriously. It does not take an Einstein to work out that you could not possibly see a person’s face from 100 feet away in the dark at a window which was partly obscured by three scaffold poles and a scaffold ladder.
Furthermore, the windowsill in the front bedrooms in Brian’s house were above his groin area, so it would have been impossible for anyone (let alone someone from 100 feet away in the dark) to have seen him with his hands down his trousers as McIntyre claimed.
But perhaps the most telling feature of these outrageous claims by McIntyre is that when asking for a paper and pencil so that he could draw a representation of the windows at 62 Days Lane, Brian drew the diagram with his left hand. He is not right-handed, but left-handed and he is not ambidextrous. In fact, friends who have worked with him on his house would testify that his left arm is very much stronger than his right.
Thus it should have already been very clear to even the most inexperienced police constable that McIntyre’s statement was nothing short of a tissue of lies. Yet Detective Constable Saib was also in the interview room. He did not make mention of this alarming discrepancy, which is almost tantamount to a witness saying that the murderer was a white female and the police are interviewing a black male!

Given that McIntyre claimed she had witnessed Brian masturbating at his bedroom window over a period of nine months in total, one could conceive that – had this been true – she would have worked out which hand he used.
A decent and thorough interviewer at this stage would have stopped that particular line of questioning and taken up the alarming disparities in Brian’s statement to the police. But PC Sargeant did not. Rather like Cathy Twist at Lambeth, Sargeant ploughed her own furrow, determined not to listen to reason but to obtain any information with which to charge Brian. She changed direction.
“The other incident, which was dated 7th May, which was Wednesday, at about 11:30pm the girl is sat in her bedroom with the light on and her friend is also in the bedroom with her and the friend was stood at the bedroom door and they say that they saw you indecently exposing yourself at the window.”
Notice how PC Sargeant – about the same age as McIntyre – refers to the 22-year-old as ‘a girl’. This was sounding more and more like Lambeth.
“Do you remember what you were doing on 7 May at about 11.30pm?”
“Right at this minute, no I don’t, but I don’t indecently expose myself up at the window at all. I’ve already said that from time to time I get out of the shower, I get out of bed or whatever and I am naked and there are no curtains and there are no houses opposite me at all, so for me that wouldn’t constitute indecent exposure, and to me anyway indecent exposure suggests a kind of a willingness to expose yourself as opposed to just naturally going about your business from the shower to the bedroom or whatever.”
“Well, I’ll just read what she said. The two girls were talking, then the girl that was stood at the door screamed and she ran out of the room turning off the other girl’s light. The other girl that we’ve just been talking about, she turned off her light as she went. The girl with the blonde hair glanced around as she was shocked by her friend screaming and she noticed that your light was on and you were stood at the window naked and then she’s turned away and her other friend came rushing into the bedroom and went over to the window, and she has made a statement saying that she saw you stood at your bedroom window completely naked masturbating…”
(Notice at this point that the police officer fails to name the alleged witnesses. Notice, too, that the transcriber of the interview – Lynn – spells the word ‘blonde’ correctly.)
“Mm.”
“And the young girl that ran out of the room screaming, that’s what made her scream, because she saw you naked at the window masturbating looking over at the blonde girl’s bedroom window.”
(Notice here how Sargeant uses the term ‘young girl’. Elizabeth McIntyre was 21 at the time of this alleged incident. Yet ‘young girl’ is precisely the same term that Maryn Murray and her friend Anya Hiley used in relation to claims against Brian. They, too, focused on the word ‘blonde’ – suggesting that Brian has a proclivity towards young, blonde females.
“Okay, two things; one I think that’s totally bollocks and secondly I really do need a toilet stop.”
The interview was then suspended at 10:35 for a comfort break and the tapes were changed.
At 10:37, a second interview commenced. It should be remembered that Brian had been arrested at 7:30am in his own house just prior to leaving for work, that he had been unnecessarily handcuffed, that his house had been the subject of an unlawful search, that he had no legal representation and that he was facing two police officers. It was a daunting situation for anybody.
The police tactics are to try to wear a suspect down. They claim that they are there to try to ‘establish’ the truth, but they are not. The police service is a business. It needs convictions. The mantra exists whereby innocent people are ‘fitted up’ all the time. There is an endless list of such people: the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Barry George and many, many more innocent people who have been vilified by the press and who have had their lives completely destroyed by corrupt police officers. Perhaps even more poignantly, the list includes the 96 dead at the Hillsborough Disaster, a match which Brian attended. He knew how corrupt the police could be. Most ordinary, decent citizens exist in a world where they need to believe that the legal system is just and that the police service is there for them. They ‘turn a blind eye’ to the reality of such inherent corruption unless, or until, they come face to face with it. This was exactly the situation in which Brian now found himself.
He knew this entire situation was farcical. He knew that no-one could see somebody’s face in the dark from 100 feet away. He knew his bedroom window was obscured by scaffold poles. He knew he was left-handed. He knew he did not live directly opposite any houses. But most importantly, he knew he was innocent.
Yet the farce continued. It continued in much the same way that Brian’s unlawful suspension at Lambeth became an unlawful dismissal, that led to a farcical Employment Tribunal hearing in which his reports of Murray’s grooming, racism and bullying went unheeded by Judge Anne Martin, and how he had been forced to write three times to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in order to lodge his Appeal. Yet, just less than three weeks after he had visited the Employment Appeal Tribunal offices on the Victoria Embankment, he now found himself being arrested as a suspect of masturbation and indecent exposure. As his father used to say, “Even a blind man could see what’s going on here, Brian.”
As soon as the second interview commenced, PC Sargeant made numerous references to ‘the young girl’ in a direct echo of Lambeth.
Brian said, “Something doesn’t ring true here. I’m left handed, so I want to point that out and secondly, as I said, I think this is rubbish.”
By way of response, PC Sargeant asks:
“Well, were you, on 7 May, on that date that maybe you can remember, stood in your bedroom window at night with the light on, naked and masturbating?”
“No.”
“Have you ever stood in your bedroom window naked with the light on masturbating?”
“No, because let me explain to you, two things need to be said here. One of them is I’ve been in that house nineteen years. I have, I would say, a pretty good reputation in that street with all my neighbours and everything. Like you’ve pointed out and I’ve pointed out I’m fifty-four years of age […] I've never had any kind of problem like this, if you call it a problem, before. So it strikes me as very odd that an incident like this should happen now where we’ve got a ‘young lady’ putting on, my word, ‘shows’. I’d be very interested to know how other people would perceive that but in my words that’s a ‘show’. Yes, so I have a very, very good reputation and it’s a stirring time, because this is a huge puzzle to me, why this would happen after all these years. Something doesn’t ring true here at all.”
“I’ve explained to you why they’ve only just come to us now. When for instance the girl got the letter, after she said she got freaked out by it, she then the next morning woke up and thought she was going over the top, thought she was being stupid, so she kept the letter and tried to forget about it and then a month after she’d opened her curtains then she realised that you were ‘watching her’, as she puts it, and you watched her over this length of time. She says whenever I glanced up he always seemed to be there watching me. She said she comes in and out of the house and she sees that you’re watching her and you’ve even stood on the pavement and watched her go into her house.”
“This is what she says?”
“Yes. And then the incident with the indecent exposure. They did tell the police and it’s taken this long for us to get the report that came through and now we’re dealing with it. These girls were scared by your actions.”
Even the staunchest supporter of the police would have to question what is being said here. PC Sargeant had not addressed Brian’s proof of his being left-handed. Nor has she addressed that he has told her that “something doesn’t ring true here.”
She claims that ‘the girl’ (not ‘young woman’ or even ‘woman’, but ‘girl’) was freaked out by the note but retained it. Had she really been freaked out, it is most likely that she would have reported it to the police at that point, or thrown the note away in a fit of temper, but she did neither – she merely kept it. This did not make sense to Brian.

She claims that the police did not act sooner because it had taken them “this long for us to get the report”. Brian knew this to be completely untrue. He had mentioned to friends that – ever since his time at Lambeth – he had felt that he had been under some form of surveillance. He knew that what he had uncovered at Lambeth and on Faceparty would make him a ‘target’ or a ‘person of interest’ to the police and, as such a person, it was likely that he would, sooner or later, be ‘fitted up’. He knew that he had been ‘fitted up’ at Lambeth and he had had this belief confirmed by Alex Passman, an award-winning employment law specialist who had told Brian that he was ‘being set up’.
Having sent three separate letters to the Employment Appeal Tribunal without receiving a single reply, and then having been arrested on a charge of indecent exposure and voyeurism immediately afterwards, it was becoming clearer to Brian and his friends that this entire episode in his life was following a pattern. He was being found guilty of things where no witness existed or where no credible evidence was offered up against him.
Brian had been a keen student of the law for many years. He read widely on the subject and was particularly keen on police procedure. He was a fan of Columbo and, whilst fictionalised, it had more than a nod towards reality. But, in his mid-twenties, he had come across the story of Frank Serpico, a New York policeman who tried to expose police corruption. In doing so, he was shot by his own officers and he ran a gauntlet of hatred in exposing the truth. Brian had been moved by the cop’s experiences which were, of course, entirely true.
Thus Brian had a good indication that events were occurring in his life which had all stemmed from the fact that he had been forced to dismiss Maryn Murray for her illegal activities in the pupil referral unit of which he was the Head Teacher. He had done the right thing and his life was being turned inside out because of it.
Back in the interview room at Bexleyheath Police Station, it was not lost on Brian that there were three people in the room and that one of them – calling himself DC Saib – had not spoken at all. As a group therapist, this was noted by Brian. He knew, as most people do, about the age old good- cop, bad-cop routine, but that wouldn’t work on him. Brian waited, knowing that Saib would speak at some point. After more than fifteen minutes of this second interview, Saib asked Brian to explain about the ‘shows’ that McIntyre put on, and why Brian referred to them as ‘shows’ as opposed to a woman undressing in her bedroom.
“ What do you call a ‘show’ exactly?”
“I kind of explained that earlier to your colleague here.”
“You did but I just want you to tell me what you call a show again.”

This is an old police trick. Get a suspect to go over it all again and try to trip him up if any small detail differs from his original account. Brian, nevertheless, humoured the detective.
“It seemed to me like a deliberate kind of show, a deliberate thing; it wasn’t somebody just changing.”
“Well, there’s loads of different types of shows, there’s theatre productions or plays and stuff like that...”
At this point, Brian knew that the police had nothing against him. When a detective in an alleged investigation has to resort to such inane and immature questions, it is a reasonable assumption to make that the police are merely trawling for information or trying to catch a suspect out. What the police are not doing is investigating the alleged crime although they are giving the impression that they are. Brian already knew at this point that he had provided the police with sufficient information to prove his innocence, but they had ignored it and they were continuing to interview him under caution.
“Well obviously it’s not a theatre production we’re looking at ... when I say a show I’m talking...”
“I’ll just re-phrase it, Brian. Tell me exactly what she did when you saw her.”
Note here the police tactics. DC Saib’s use of the name ‘Brian’ is an attempt to make the suspect feel that they are ‘mates’ when nothing could be further from the truth. Secondly, Saib is trying to lead Brian down a particular path: “tell me exactly what she did when you saw her”. Brian had already explained all this to PC Sargeant.
“Well on several occasions she will kind of put the light on, get into the middle of the room, leave this curtain open and these curtains closed. This is a regular pattern and it would be like kind of dancing, kind of flicking her hair, it would be like putting her top on, taking her top off, putting another top on, another top off, it would be like kind of coming across to the window to see if anybody is looking, going back and doing a bit more and so on. This could be anything from a quarter of an hour to half an hour, or longer.”
For more than ten minutes, DC Saib tried to twist the reality round to show that Brian was a middle-aged man who had fixated on a 20-something year old and who believed that she was putting on these shows for him.
The reality was that she was putting on these shows for him, but not for the reasons Saib implied.
Brian Pead is not a stupid man. He knew that it was no coincidence that four females moved into the house across the road from him at the very same time that he was investigating Faceparty and what he had uncovered at Lambeth Council.
He knew that the shows were meant for him and he knew that she was trying to lead him into some form of illicit sexual act.
It was for this reason that he had put the note through the door, informing Elizabeth McIntyre (he did not, of course, know her name at that point) that she could be seen. He believed this to be some form of protection for him – there was a record that he had noticed what was going on. He also knew, in sending that note, that he would run the risk of corrupt police officers, barristers and judges using that note against him, but he took the risk in the belief that the note itself was some form of protection. A course of action was open to him in which he did nothing but merely observe McIntyre’s attempts to impersonate the Lorelei, a siren of the Rhine whose singing lures sailors to shipwreck. But doing nothing would prove worse, he felt, and thus he sent the note, informing his friend, John Callow, of his actions. In keeping the note, McIntyre had, in fact, played into Brian’s hands. Any normal, decent female who had been informed that she could be seen undressing at the window would have ensured that she stopped the shows and that she closed the curtains at both windows in her bedroom. But the note had the opposite effect on McIntyre – she increased the number of shows and she became more daring, despite claiming to the police that the note had “freaked me out”.
As the second interview drew to a close, Brian was asked if he had anything else to add. He paused to think before speaking and then said:
“I’m definitely not guilty of the allegations. I can see how an outside observer, like either of you, can look at that note there and put two and two together to make five when putting two and two together needn’t necessarily be. What is my concern is there’s some kind of dynamic here but I wouldn’t mind betting she’s been caught out putting on shows and has had to make a story for her friends. I’m not sure that that’s right and so on, but I definitely feel aggrieved here, I have to say that.”
“Okay, most people do when they’ve got allegations made against them, they’re not obviously happy about it.”
“I deny the allegations completely.”
“That will do then. Can I ask you just to sign what you’ve drawn there?
MR PEAD SIGNED AND DATED HIS DRAWING
We’ll conclude the interview at 11.15…”
It is obvious that Brian had given a good account of himself despite having no legal representation because he was then led away to the cells where he remained for another hour and a quarter. During this time, the two police officers would have been conferring with the Crown Prosecutors who would have been telling the police to “Ask him this…” and “Ask him about…” in order to try to lay charges. Had they had enough evidence, they would have laid charges immediately, but they didn’t and so Brian had to endure a third interview. It lasted, however, for just seven minutes. The transcript makes for interesting reading and is reproduced in part here. Note the sheer desperation in the questioning. It is clear to Brian at that time that his version of events had been completely discounted and that the police had no agenda other than to lay charges against him.
PC Sargeant explained why they were going to interview Brian again. “This is the third tape that we’ve had today. This is the second interview today. The last interview ended at 11.15 today and it is now 12.30. The reason why I’m interviewing you again, Brian, is we just want to clarify one point, and I’ll explain what that’s going to be. What I needed to clarify with you, Brian, is when we were talking earlier about the situation in the bedroom, where the girls said they saw you masturbating in the bedroom window on the 7th of May. We were concentrating on what we think is the bedroom window, where you’ve got the big bay windows, is that right?”
“Yes.”
“It’s now come to light that the window that you were seen to be masturbating in was actually the window on the left-hand side as you look at your house. Do you know which one I mean?”
“Yeah, that would be the landing window.”
“You’ve got three windows on the front of your house haven’t you? One on the left, the landing window and then you’ve got the big bay window. Is that correct?”
“Yes, it’s not a bay, but I know what you mean. It’s not a double bay it’s a single bay, hang on I’m getting confused. If you look at my house from the road my bedroom is over on the right, then there’s a middle window, then there’s a window to the left.”
“That’s correct yes, and that window at the moment has got clothes in it. Well, it’s that window that the two witnesses saw you stood at naked and masturbating on 7th May 2005, the window on the left hand side as you look at the house.”
“Okay.”
“When the girl with the blonde hair glanced up, she said she glanced only quickly, realised there was a light on, saw you standing naked and then looked away, but the two girls that actually were stood and saw said it was that left hand window.”
“Okay.”
“Were you stood in that window masturbating?”
“Never. Absolutely 100% never.”
“Were you stood in the landing window masturbating?”
“No.”
“Were you stood in any windows in your house masturbating that night?”
“No. I’ve been over this before.”
92 Framed!
“Okay. Have you stood naked in your window masturbating at any point between now and October/September last year, masturbating in any of your windows?”
“No.”
“So you definitely weren’t stood masturbating in your window on the night that the girls have alleged?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Were you doing anything in that window?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Have you stood naked in that window or are you ever naked in that room?”
“That room is absolutely choc-a-bloc full of stuff. It wouldn’t be possible to stand in front of the window in that room at all.”
“What have you got in that room?”
“Tools, newspaper cuttings, football books, choc-a-bloc full of crap basically at the moment so it just simply would not be possible.”
“What have you got in front of that window at the moment?”
“Clothes.”
“How are they placed in front of the window?”
“There’s a curtain rail, they’re all on the curtain rail like a wardrobe.”
“Just an open curtain rail and they’re just hanging off it?”
“Yeah.”
“How near to the window is that?”
“Right in front of the window. You couldn’t see in.”
“Is it right up against the window?”
“Yeah. The curtain pole hangs three inches or four inches away from the wall. They’re on that pole, so in effect they’re curtains.”
“Is it fixed to the wall then, this curtain pole?”
“Yeah.”
“So it’s not on a free-standing thing, it’s fixed to the wall so they can’t be moved or anything, but the hangers that the clothes are on there, can they be moved from the curtain pole?”
“What the shirts and things on hangers that are now on the pole, could they be moved? Yeah, they can come on and off because in effect that’s my wardrobe at the minute while I do all the rooms up.”
“So you’re saying that you weren’t stood at that window on the left-hand side of your house as you look at it?”
“Most certainly.”
“And you’ve never been stood at that window naked?”
“Never.”
“Would you need to change in that room at all?”
“No, because you can’t get in there.”
“Do you not need to get to your clothes that are hanging up?”
“Yeah, but I mean you couldn’t physically stand in there changing really.”
“But if you can get to the window to get your clothes then you can stand there can’t you?”
“Just ... there’s boxes and tools and all that so I can reach over and get something yeah but that’s all.”
“So you have to reach to get your clothing do you?”
“Mm.”
“Okay, so you’re saying at no point have you stood in any of your windows in the house, whether they’re upstairs or downstairs.”
“Mm.”
“You have not stood there masturbating naked?”
“No.”
“And you’ve not been naked in that room where your clothes are?”
“Never.”
“Have you been naked in any of your other rooms, apart from your bedroom obviously?”
“No ... well, only in the bathroom obviously.”
“Where’s the bathroom?”
“At the back.”
And the British taxpayer is footing an enormous bill for such ‘investigation’ by the police. Two officers cost the taxpayer money. A Crown prosecutor and associated staff. Then the typist has to be paid. This futile and pointless exercise has cost the taxpayer a considerable sum of money. Readers should remember that any criminal prosecution has to be judged against the standard that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Brian Pead had already provided sufficient information to show that the allegations had been clearly fabricated, but the police had pursued him relentlessly, even in the face of such a credible account by Brian.
“Right, that’s it. Is there anything you’d like to add or say or ask?”
“Well, yeah, I would actually because this just confirms what I originally felt, that a lot of this is complete poppy-cock for want of a better word. That’s all I want to say.”
The interview concluded at 12:37. At this point, the tape recorder was turned off and PC Sargeant left the interview room, leaving just Brian and DC Saib.
The detective spoke first. “Hmm, it’s not looking good, Brian. Listen, mate, do yourself a favour. Accept a caution and I can make all this go away.”
Knowing full well what Saib was indicating, Brian nevertheless asked, “What do mean, exactly?”
“Well, we have three witnesses…”
“And what about the fourth female student? What has she had to say about this?”
“She hasn’t made a statement…”
“And why would that be?”
“She just hasn’t.”
“That’s not good enough.”
“Look, listen. If you accept a caution, you won’t have to go to Court. It won’t get in the paper and no-one need know. You can be out of the station in minutes.”
“I expect to be released now anyway. I have fully co-operated. The interviews are finished and I have the right to be released now.”
“But what about the caution? Will you accept a police caution?”
“Fuck off! I’m innocent. I can prove that in Court! I am not going to accept a caution when I’m innocent, just so you can improve your statistics.”
“But a caution won’t show up on your police record.”
Brian knew this to be a lie. Throughout his teaching career and his training as a counsellor, Brian had been subjected to Enhanced Disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau. Saib had lied.
“I’m not interested.”
Unwilling to play ball, Brian was led back to a cell to await his fate.
PC Sargeant collected him from the cells an hour or so later and charged him with exposure. “Get yourself a solicitor,” she said as he left the station.
It later transpired that between Brian’s second and third interviews, Elizabeth McIntyre had visited the police station and changed her original statement. She had initially claimed that she had seen Brian masturbating in his bedroom window with the light off, then she provided a statement to say that he had been in the bedroom to the far left (as seen from the street) with the light on.
Even the police themselves had conceded that that bedroom window was covered with Brian’s clothes.
At no point had the police sent a forensics team round to Brian’s house to measure the height of the windowsills or the ceilings. They did not take a measurement of his height. They had not objectively taken evidence from both parties – they had merely believed the statements of three out of four students.
The police and Crown Prosecution Service use several lawbooks to refer to when charging people with alleged offences. Archbold is one of the more famous of such books. This is what Archbold says about Exposure:
“…(1) Exposure
(a) Statute
Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.66
Exposure: 66(1) – A person commits an offence if
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals; and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

(b) Indictment
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Exposure, contrary to section 66(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Particulars of Offence
AB, on the ____ day of ____, 20__ intentionally exposed his genitals, intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm or distress…”
Archbold is clear on the two important steps here: firstly, the act itself (in legal terms the actus reus). A person must perform the act of exposing his genitals. Secondly he must have the intent (in legal terms, the mens rea) to intentionally cause the onlooker alarm or distress.
It is difficult to conceive that the Crown truly believed that Brian Pead, even if he had been masturbating at his bedroom window, was doing so with malicious intent.
The concurrence principle is also relevant here: this means that the actus reus and the mens rea must coincide in time. According to Simester, Spencer, Sullivan and Virgo in Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, Hart Publishing, 2010, this principle has an ancient pedigree. As long ago as 1798, Lord Kenyon described it as:
“…a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty). The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime…”
Since criminal prosecutions are subject to certain tests before they are brought, it is difficult to imagine why this case ever came to court on its merits alone. The Crown Prosecution’s own website provides the following information about how decisions are made in respect of which cases to prosecute. We reproduce the text below:
“…The principles we follow:
The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the basic principles to be followed by Crown Prosecutors when they make case decisions. The decision on whether or not to charge a case against a suspect is based on two tests outlined in the Code.

The evidential test
This is the first stage in the decision to prosecute. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against each defendant on each charge. They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ is an objective test. It means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. (This is a separate test from the one that criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only convict if it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.) If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.
The public interest test
If the case does pass the evidential test, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both tests.
The emphases are ours. Based on these supposedly objective tests, there was no case. The three female ‘victims’ had all made statements which differed from each other significantly. The police – on their own later admission – had not investigated the case. No-one would have thought that Brian deliberately intended to cause the females alarm or distress. And the act itself was not possible because in the window in question, the windowsills were above Brian’s groin area and the ceiling was too low for him to stand on a chair or anything. Brian is around 6ft 1in tall and the ceiling height was measured by John Callow (a former surveyor for British Telecom) to be 6ft 7in, giving a clearance of only 6 inches. It would have been physically impossible for Brian to have stood on a chair or anything else had he wished to display his genitals because there was insufficient headroom. Furthermore, between the bottom of the visible glass area of the window and the windowsill was a further gap of 7 inches, which meant that only a person of approximately 5ft tall could have displayed his genitals in that window.
But perhaps the most significant point was that Brian had two witnesses of his own – John Callow, a counselling friend, and Maya Walker, his colleague and lover. He had not mentioned this to the police because (a) they had never asked whether he had any witnesses (a serious error in their ‘investigation’) and (b) he gave the police enough rope to hang themselves, as his father had taught him years before.
When he put the note through the front door of 62 Days Lane, he had told his friend, John Callow, about it, about the strange pattern with the curtains and what he had seen.
But Sunday 18 May 2008 was to prove a pivotal point in this scenario.
The police had claimed that Brian had been masturbating at his bedroom window from October through to 18 May 2008.
Before discussing that significant Sunday, let us return to the chronology of Brian’s life in this month.
7 May 2008 – McIntyre claims Brian had been masturbating at a bedroom window.
7 May 2008 – Brian is in agony from gout and goes to bed early to take the weight off his feet.
8 May 2008 – Brian struggles in to work at Off Centre and during his lunch hour he types out a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
8 May 2008 – On his way home from work, Brian attends Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup and is diagnosed with gout for the first time in his life (this hospital visit is, of course, on his medical records).
8 May 2008 – On his way home from the hospital, Brian calls in at Geoffrey Bacon’s house in Chislehurst, uses the internet and is messaged by the ‘girl’ on Faceparty. He tells ‘her’ “You are a fake!”
13 May 2008 – Brian takes the letter to the EAT.
18 May 2008 – Maya Walker visits Brian in Sidcup. Walker is a witness to Elizabeth McIntyre’s ‘shows’.
20 May 2008 – Brian arrested.
Why had the police taken a full two weeks from 7 May until 20 May to arrest Brian for alleged indecent exposure? Would he have even been arrested at all had he not taken the letter to the EAT? Why did the fourth female student in the house at 62 Days Lane not make a statement? Why did the police not measure Brian’s house? Why did they not seek his permission to obtain his medical records? Why did the police not interview Maya Walker,
his known lover? Why did the police not interview John Callow? Why did the police not interview Brian’s neighbours, particularly Glen Meeking and Ellen Stanley?
The authors believe that the police failed to conduct a proper investigation because had they done so, they could not possibly have brought any charges against Brian. What ‘evidence’ they did have was the witness statements of three females in their early-20s, and evidence exists which shows that they may have been operating a brothel (as Glen Meeking suggested in his witness statement) or even cultivating drugs (as Ellen Stanley suggested in her statement.) Ellen Stanley – the Miss Marple of that area of Days Lane - had also noticed the odd pattern with the curtains at number 62.
Clearly the police had not conducted a thorough investigation. This was an exact mirror of Brian’s unlawful dismissal from Lambeth Council.
Let us now examine the statement made by Maya Walker about Sunday 18 May 2008. This is of great significance. For this reason, it is reproduced in its entirety:
“…Statement
Written on: 10.06.2008 by: Maya Walker
07.05.2008
I remember this day especially, as we had a ‘Dirty Hands day’ at work. This meant that we closed our counselling centre to clients on that day, so we could spend the day clearing the clutter that we gathered over the years. I remember Brian limping on that day. When I asked him what had happened he told me that he was not sure, but that he probably had broken his toe. He said that he could not remember when he would have done it, but that was the only way he was able to make sense of his pain. I could see that he was in great pain when he left work that day and that he was not able to stand for long.
When he came to work the next day, he appeared in even greater agony. It did not surprise me that he came to work regardless of his pain, as I was aware that commitment to work and his clients is one of his qualities. He said that he was going to the hospital to be checked in the evening after work. It later transpired that he was told that he had gout.
18.05.2008
In the evening Brian and I were lying on the bed watching TV. Our back and heads were leaning on the headboard opposite the door. When sitting in the middle of the bed, leaning on the headboard, without any effort as you turn your head slightly to the left, you can see through the window of the house further down the road on the opposite side. I would usually be either in the middle or on the left side of the bed and could not be seen by others
because of the blue scaffolder’s sign. When sitting on the left hand side of the bed, you are unable to see the windows well from that angle, as the scaffolding is in the way. When we were in half-sitting position Brian asked me what I think about what I can see through the window of that house. I moved slightly towards the middle of the bed and turned my head slightly to the left and looked through the window. I saw a woman wearing a very revealing vest, walking through the room. I could clearly observe that the top she was wearing was very revealing and exposing to some extent her bigger breasts. I was only able to see her some of the time when she is in a particular part of the room, as you see through the window at an angle. I saw her stop in that particular part of the room, where she could be clearly seen. She turned away from the window for a number of seconds, maybe 10 or 20. She then turned around and started walking to another part of the room. I saw her glance towards Brian's house and saw her lock her look. I said to Brian that I feel that she is aware of being able to be seen. I saw the same happen on a few occasions, as she walked to the part of the room where she was able to be seen (not a large area, as the houses are not standing exactly opposite from each other), stood there for a while and as she would turn to walk to another part of the room. She would always look in to our direction. The impression I was left with, was that she was deliberately wanting to show herself, which is what I said to Brian. Brian’s response was something like: “That’s what I thought. It’s helpful for me to hear this from you. It’s not something I have imagined then?” He then told me that he has been seeing her doing this for months and that his impression is also that she seems to want to be observed, as she would have at least one of her curtains always open in the evenings and he would be able to see her getting undressed. We both talked about the possibility that she might the kind of person that we would call an ‘exhibitionist’. A person that likes to display herself. This comment or observation was not unusual for us, as we often make observations about people, checking out our instincts or views about them with the hope of broadening our understanding of human nature. We both find this way of interacting helpful for our development as counsellors and our self-development as human beings.
Being under no illusion that some men would find this kind of display fascinating, a turn on and perhaps even inviting, I asked Brian how he’s finding it and whether he would want to get involved with her in some way, if she was up for it? Brian said that months ago, he did give her a note inviting her to contact him, or actually stop the shows by bringing it to her attention in a humorous way. (I don’t remember exact contents of the note.) She never contacted him. He also said that he still notices her displays as they are almost in his face (meaning that he does not need to make much effort to notice) and though he is interested in what they represent to her, he now feels impartial about them.

24.05.2008
I came to see Brian in the late afternoon with intention to go to the cinema. Brian told me that he now felt very apprehensive leaving the house in case she may think that he is there because of her. He told me that earlier that day, he stepped out of the house and observed that the woman came out of the house. Even though she came out just after he stepped out, he immediately got worried that she may think that he came out, because she was there. He told me that he observed that she was wearing very high cut hot pants and a tight fitting top. (I have since seen her myself on a cloudy and rainy day wearing hot pants). He asked what I as a woman thought about this. I knew that Brian was arrested and why and the impression I got was that the woman claimed to be distressed by Brian’s alleged masturbating at the window and his so-called voyeurism. Having worked with a number of women who were in one way or another left distressed because of different kind of encounters with men I could not make sense of this. The women I have in mind are the ones that had a particular experience with a man, whereby they were subjected to something they did not want to happen to them. Anything from a man openly ‘hitting on them’ or to a greater extreme where they may have been indecently assaulted or even raped. Those women’s reaction to the distress they would be left with, would be to never want to face a man again or if that choice was not there, they would often change the way they would dress, so not to appear in any way provocative. They would lose the freedom to dress anyway they felt comfortable with before the incident. Knowing this, I was surprised to hear that the woman would come out in hot pants, knowing that she would be potentially seen by a man who allegedly made her feel distressed by allegedly masturbating in his own house. I was also thinking about her displays in the window after the alleged masturbation happened. Again this behaviour would not marry up my understanding of the behaviour of a woman in distress.
Brian and I have been very honest with each other from the onset even with telling each other the things that would be a challenge to share with someone else. From how I got to know Brian sexually, I feel that displaying himself while masturbating in his neighbourhood would not be a turn on for him. The way he is perceived matters to him greatly and being seen as a potential ‘pervert’ by masturbating by the window would potentially tarnish his reputation of nearly 20 years living in that house, as he could be seen by other people, e.g. vicar across the road, or even by people leaving the church hall at night. The church hall opposite Brian’s house is used for social functions on a regular bases (sic) and people leave it up to midnight on occasions.
Even more importantly, I don’t have any doubts that Brian would not cause any intentional distress to anyone, as he is particularly sensitive to people and shows a lot of care and consideration to people around him and it is of great importance to him how people view him…”
This statement from Maya Walker shows Brian’s honesty and transparency about his intentions and motives and his behaviour. He always tries to ensure that at least one other person is aware of whatever he does, so that he always has someone to rely on and ‘watch his back’.
Maya Walker clearly shows that Elizabeth McIntyre was putting on shows exactly as Brian had told the police during his lengthy interviews.
Ms Walker also confirmed that Brian was in great pain on the 7 and 8 May, and that he had visited the hospital.
Ms Walker also confirmed that – in her opinion as his lover – Brian would never want to cause distress to anyone. He is a very spiritual human being and is “…particularly sensitive to people and shows a lot of care and consideration to people around him…” Causing distress to female students (or others) is not in his psychological or emotional make-up.
If Brian had been masturbating at his bedroom window between October 2007 and May 2008, why had it taken McIntyre eight months to report such behaviour, particularly if it caused her such trauma?
The authors put forward the view that, because of his discoveries of child abuse, racism and bullying within Lambeth Council, together with his investigations into Faceparty, Brian was under police observation. The authors also believe that his house was bugged, and that the police then became aware of the conversation between Brian and Maya Walker of 18 May 2008. The police were then forced to move fast and arrest Brian on obvious trumped-up charges. They needed him ‘in the system’ to enable them to monitor him even more closely and to disrupt his research and investigations.
The authors also believe that by visiting the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Brian had to be silenced, his attention turned away from an Appeal and his energies focused on fighting spurious criminal allegations. This pattern of behaviour by the police has been noticed by the authors of this book over some six years. Each time Brian attempts to bring his findings to the attention of the authorities, the very same authorities – which are there to protect his rights – actually abuse their powers, abuse Brian’s human rights and try to discredit him in the eyes of others.
Elizabeth McIntyre, Natalie Ryan and Katie Prouse had made spurious allegations against Brian Pead – Christine Holloway, the fourth tenant at 62 Days Lane, Sidcup had not.
But if Brian thought that his problems couldn’t get any worse, he was wrong – terribly wrong.
Within the space of less than two weeks, they were to suddenly multiply dramatically. His problems multiplied in direct correlation with his exposure of police corruption.