Children Screaming to be Heard asking questions re Lambeth Council's refusal to provide information

1/ Why is another case of child abuse by a council being allowed to be covered up

 

2/ Why is the British Government protecting Lambeth council  

 

3/  Brian Pead has spoken out to protect children from being groomed in readiness for the paedophiles and yet Governments continue to sentence Brian Pead to prison, are they using Brian Pead to stop other whistle blowers "YES" if people such as Brian Pead are not allowed to whistle blow and Governments continually ignore the truth as they did with Jimmy Savile Cyril Smith Ted Heath and how many 100s more we will never know remember money talks,  then no child is or will ever be safe in the UK in what is known as a multibillion pound industry "In a child's best interest"  

 

4/ For the past three years the charity children screaming to be heard has researched 24/7 into the child abuse in the UK and of the research it would become a best selling film of the corruption of our poor little abused children screaming to be heard just because the Governments do not listen to the whistle blowers and for his reason we have thousands of kids from past abused in care living on the streets begging with 49% in prisons with many who have committed suicide and for the hundreds of kids from care who do try to speak out many are victimised such as Brian Pead.

Maggie Tuttle

www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com 

The silent witnesses here lies the truth 

Brian Pead is innocent, says Beverley Williams, Lambeth

BEVERLEY WILLIAMS

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service and former PA to Barry GILHOOLY, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Brian Pead and that she and they did in fact steal property belonging to Brian Pead, namely counselling books, personal development books, psychology books, business development books, teaching books, educational management books, personal photographs of grand-children, a pair of shoes, a briefcase and various other items including computer files valued together at approximately £800 pounds GB sterling.

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving Brian Pead of property belonging to him.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in her/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform her duty and wilfully misconducted herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

Perverting the Course of Justice

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she - with her knowledge and consent - :

(i)                 was complicit in stealing valuable property from Brian Pead

(ii)               was aware of false evidence being given to an employment investigation into mis-founded and spurious allegations against Brian Pead made up after he had reported child abuse, bullying and racism to his superiors (who failed to act)

(iii)             failed to report criminal activity to a Disciplinary Hearing, an Appeal against dismissal, an Employment Tribunal, the Police and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely convict Mr Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(vi)             failed to report child grooming, racism, bullying and misconduct in public office to her superiors and to the Police.

Harassment

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and did cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by herself (and with others) by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did abuse her position as a Council Employee in that she participated in a series of crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead which she knew, or ought to have known, would cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth working in the Connexions Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, was complicit in the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that she was aware of the removal of the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide employment investigation to take place, contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead and in allowing crimes to be perpetrated against Brian Pead.

Barry Gilhooly guilty of a cover-up says Richard Fulcher

BARRY GILHOOLY

That Barry GILHOOLY, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Brian Pead and that he and they did in fact steal property belonging to Brian Pead, namely counselling books, personal development books, psychology books, business development books, teaching books, educational management books, personal photographs of grand-children, a pair of shoes, a briefcase and various other items including computer files valued together at approximately £800 pounds GB sterling.  

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving Brian Pead of property belonging to him.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in him/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Barry Gilhooly, 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform his duty and wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

Perverting the Course of Justice

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for Lambeth Council, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that he:

(i)                 stole valuable property from Brian Pead

(ii)               claimed that he was working with the authority of Lambeth Council in conducting an investigation into mis-founded and spurious allegations against Brian Pead made up after he had reported child abuse, bullying and racism to his superiors (who failed to act)

(iii)             provided false information to a Disciplinary Hearing, an Appeal against dismissal, an Employment Tribunal, police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             provided false information to Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely imprison Mr Brian Pead

(vi)             conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(vii)           failed to report child grooming, racism and bullying within a Lambeth pupil referral unit called the OLCVS

Harassment

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and did cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, and to the Courts, and that he failed to report child grooming, racism and bullying, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did abuse his position as a Council Officer in that he (and others) perpetrated a series of crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead which he knew, or ought to have known, would cause him and his family alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by false representation

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did make false representations and provide false documents to other Council officers and employees, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and to the Courts in relation to Brian Pead, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did authorise the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that he (along with others) authorised the removal of the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide employment investigation to take place and in which he was participating, contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

Barry Gilhooly, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes against Brian Pead and in allowing crimes and human rights abuses to be perpetrated against Brian Pead.

Multiple Counts

That Barry GILHOOLY also repeated these offences in the case of James R. Walker –v- London Borough of Lambeth.

Mr Walker was the former Head Teacher of Henry Fawcett Primary School in Kennington in the London Borough of Lambeth.

James Walker was sacked from Henry Fawcett Primary School in Kennington over claims of bullying and after raising concerns about its budget. Lambeth Council was determined to remove him, the South London Employment Tribunal heard.

But Mr Walker said it was "a disgrace that Lambeth has used public funds to push me out of my job, and I hope the actions of those responsible for this waste will be thoroughly investigated".

The Employment Tribunal criticised two senior education officers - Cathy Twist and Claire Cobbold.

Barry Gilhooly, a former assistant director at Lambeth who carried out the investigation into the allegations against Mr Walker, was also criticised by the tribunal which found his investigation was flawed.

Simon Hughes, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said: "...I have rarely found a tribunal as willing to condemn as many people, senior people who came before them, for not telling the truth.  This is not good enough..."

Source: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16009828>

The local Labour MP, Kate Hoey, said Lambeth Council objected to Mr Walker for "resisting their policies." But an employment tribunal said the bullying allegations were a "stalking horse" to remove him and the investigation one-sided. The hostility of the council towards Mr Walker "bordered on callousness". He won his claim for unfair dismissal. Far from being the perpetrator of bullying, Mr Walker has been on the receiving end of astonishing municipal bullying...”

Phyllis Dunipace “...commissioned a report written by consultant Tom Walker in February 2009 outlining a strategy for removing James Walker from his post...” http://kenningtonnews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08.

CLAIRE COBBOLD

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Brian Pead and that she and they did in fact steal property belonging to Brian Pead, namely counselling books, personal development books, psychology books, business development books, teaching books, educational management books, personal photographs of grand-children, a pair of shoes, a briefcase and various other items including computer files valued together at approximately £800 pounds GB sterling.

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving Brian Pead of property belonging to him.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in her/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform her duty and wilfully misconducted herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

Perverting the Course of Justice

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she - with her knowledge and consent - :

(i)                 stole valuable property from Brian Pead

(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of Lambeth Council in conducting an investigation into mis-founded and spurious allegations against Brian Pead made up after he had reported child abuse, bullying and racism to his superiors (who failed to act)

(iii)             provided false information to a Disciplinary Hearing, an Appeal against dismissal, an Employment Tribunal, police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             provided false information to Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely imprison Mr Brian Pead

(vi)             conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(vii)           conspired with others to falsely imprison Brian Pead on a number of occasions

(viii)         failed to report child grooming, racism and bullying within a Lambeth pupil referral unit called the OLCVS

Harassment

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and did cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by herself (and with others) by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did abuse her position as a Council Officer in that she authorised a series of crimes to be perpetrated against Brian Pead and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead which she knew, or ought to have known, would cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by false representation

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did authorise others in her control to unlawfully dismiss Brian Pead, make false representations and provide false documents to other Council officers and employees, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and to the Courts in relation to Brian Pead, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, was complicit in the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that she was aware of the removal of the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide employment investigation to take place, contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

That Claire COBBOLD, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes against Brian Pead and in allowing crimes and human rights abuses to be perpetrated against Brian Pead.

Multiple Counts

That Claire COBBOLD also repeated these offences in the case of James R. Walker –v- London Borough of Lambeth.

Mr Walker was the former Head Teacher of Henry Fawcett Primary School in Kennington in the London Borough of Lambeth.

James Walker was sacked from Henry Fawcett Primary School in Kennington over claims of bullying and after raising concerns about its budget. Lambeth Council was determined to remove him, the South London Employment Tribunal heard.

But Mr Walker said it was "a disgrace that Lambeth has used public funds to push me out of my job, and I hope the actions of those responsible for this waste will be thoroughly investigated".

The Employment Tribunal criticised two senior education officers - Cathy Twist and Claire Cobbold.

Barry Gilhooly, a former assistant director at Lambeth who carried out the investigation into the allegations against Mr Walker, was also criticised by the tribunal which found his investigation was flawed.

Simon Hughes, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said: "...I have rarely found a tribunal as willing to condemn as many people, senior people who came before them, for not telling the truth.  This is not good enough..."

Source: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16009828>

The local Labour MP, Kate Hoey, said Lambeth Council objected to Mr Walker for "resisting their policies." But an employment tribunal said the bullying allegations were a "stalking horse" to remove him and the investigation one-sided. The hostility of the council towards Mr Walker "bordered on callousness". He won his claim for unfair dismissal. Far from being the perpetrator of bullying, Mr Walker has been on the receiving end of astonishing municipal bullying...”

Phyllis Dunipace “...commissioned a report written by consultant Tom Walker in February 2009 outlining a strategy for removing James Walker from his post...” http://kenningtonnews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08.

Dave Clack of King's Lynn council - theft!

DAVID CLACK, BOROUGH COUNCIL OF KING’S LYNN AND WEST NORFOLK

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

David Clack, between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Albert, Violet and Robert Ecclestone and that he and others did in fact steal property belonging to the Ecclestones, namely rare coins, old postcards (more than 100,000), a 1549 first edition Book of Common Prayer, rare stamps, cigarette cards, jewellery, at least 500 old and rare books, first day covers, medals, military badges, bank notes, antique magazines, rare paintings, old prints, old share certificates and bonds, antique newspapers (such as 1790 editions of The Times), old car brochures, Matchbox toys (many still in boxes), an old microscope, Roman artefacts and various other items valued together at approximately £1.5 million pounds GB sterling.

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving the Ecclestones of property belonging to them.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in him/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That David Clack, between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013 wilfully neglected to perform his duty and wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

Perverting the Course of Justice

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that he:

1        stole valuable property from the Ecclestones

2        claimed that he was working with the authority of Court Orders when no such Orders existed and have been proven by a Court not to exist

3        provided false information to Members of Parliament, police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

4        provided false information to the Ecclestones

5        conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely imprison Mr Albert Ecclestone and Mrs Violet Ecclestone

6        conspired with others to falsely imprison Robert Ecclestone

7        conspired with others to cause actual bodily harm to Robert Ecclestone

8        conspired with others to prevent Mrs Violet Ecclestone and Robert Ecclestone from lawfully residing in the property which they own

9        conspired with others to harass the Ecclestones

Harassment

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Albert, Violet and Robert Ecclestone and did cause them alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to the Ecclestones, to the police, to Members of Parliament and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did abuse his position as a Council Officer in that he perpetrated a series of crimes against the Ecclestones and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of the Ecclestones, which he knew, or ought to have known, would cause them alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by false representation

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did make false representations and provide false documents to other Council officers and employees, to the police, to Members of Parliament, to Social Services and to the Courts in relation to the Ecclestones, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Assault

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did assault Albert, Violet and Robert Ecclestone contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Criminal Damage

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 26 September 2013, caused criminal damage to the property owned by the Ecclestones, in that he broke locks on the front door of their house and tore wallpaper from the walls of their house, contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Misuse of Public Funds

David Clack, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes against the Ecclestones.

CLARE HANNA, Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

Clare Hanna, between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Albert, Violet and Robert Ecclestone and that she and others did in fact steal property belonging to the Ecclestones, namely rare coins, old postcards (more than 100,000), a 1549 first edition Book of Common Prayer, rare stamps, cigarette cards, jewellery, at least 500 old and rare books, first day covers, medals, military badges, bank notes, antique magazines, rare paintings, old prints, old share certificates and bonds, antique newspapers (such as 1790 editions of The Times), old car brochures, Matchbox toys (many still in boxes), an old microscope, Roman artefacts and various other items valued together at approximately £1.5 million pounds GB sterling.

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving the Ecclestones of property belonging to them.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in her/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Clare Hanna, between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013 wilfully neglected to perform her duty and wilfully misconducted herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

Perverting the Course of Justice

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she:

(i)                 stole valuable property from the Ecclestones

(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of Court Orders when no such Orders existed and have been proven by a Court not to exist

(iii)             provided false information to Members of Parliament, police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             provided false information to the Ecclestones

(v)               conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely imprison Mr Albert Ecclestone and Mrs Violet Ecclestone

(vi)             conspired with others to falsely imprison Robert Ecclestone

(vii)           conspired with others to cause actual bodily harm to Robert Ecclestone

(viii)         conspired with others to prevent Mrs Violet Ecclestone and Robert Ecclestone from lawfully residing in the property which they own

(ix)             conspired with others to harass the Ecclestones

Harassment

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Albert, Violet and Robert Ecclestone and did cause them alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to the Ecclestones, to the police, to Members of Parliament and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did abuse her position as a Council Officer in that she perpetrated a series of crimes against the Ecclestones and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of the Ecclestones, which she knew, or ought to have known, would cause them alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by false representation

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did make false representations and provide false documents to other Council officers and employees, to the police, to Members of Parliament, to Social Services and to the Courts in relation to the Ecclestones, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Assault

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, did assault Albert, Violet and Robert Ecclestone contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Criminal Damage

Clare Hanna, a Council Officer for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, on days between 01 October 2005 and 25 September 2013, caused criminal damage to the property owned by the Ecclestones, in that she broke locks on the front door of their house and tore wallpaper from the walls of their house, contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Brian Pead and Richard Fulcher ... two men who uncovered corruption in their local authority, the police and the judicial system.

We reproduce below a 76-page letter of complaint against the Police which draws attention to the crimes perpetrated against them and Robert Ecclestone, 61, and his elderly mother, Violet Ecclestone, 93. Both Robert and his mother had more than £1.5million worth of antiques stolen from their home. Robert is not allowed to live in his own house because David Clack, an officer from the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, stole the items under the guise of "clearing the house". The Ecclestones are avid collectors - not hoarders!

Poor Violet is currently being held against her will in an old people's home. When she pops her clogs, the Council will force Robert to sell the family home to pay for her keep in the home - even though she doesn't want to live there!

Now read on ... these crimes are against INNOCENT people whom the police and judiciary should be protecting, not SHAFTING.

Dear Safer Neighbourhoods Team, HUNSTANTON, Norfolk:

AN OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO NORFOLK CONSTABULARY

REPORTING CRIMES: DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS, ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS AGAINST NAMED PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES

Please see below the Particulars of the Offences which need to be recorded by Norfolk Constabulary and thoroughly and robustly investigated to the CRIMINAL STANDARD.

Perverting the course of justice

The Offence

3. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

·         does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)

·         which has a tendency to pervert and

·         which is intended to pervert

·         the course of public justice.

4. The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).

5. Intention is not the same as motive. (However, the motive of the suspect is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached.) The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

6. Where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested (Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762).

JAMES MORGAN, Partner, Hayes and Storr Solicitors, Norfolk

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

JAMES MORGAN, a Solicitor and Partner of Hayes & Storr, on a day between 09 July and 16 August 2012, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that he:

i.                    arranged for the arrest of Mr Richard Fulcher, a farmer

ii.                  conspired with a member of staff [Amanda Nudds] to bring false claims against Mr Fulcher

iii.                arranged for a member of his staff [Amanda Nudds] to commit perjury on 13 March 2013 at Norwich Magistrates’ Court

iv.                conspired with Anissa Hallworth [a Partner of Hayes & Storr] to bring spurious allegations against Mr Fulcher of Threats to Kill and Harassment

v.                  brought about spurious allegations after Mr Fulcher had complained about the way his civil complaint against Fenland District Council was being handled by Hayes & Storr

vi.                informed the Executive Committee of the Conservative Association that Mr Fulcher would be arrested ‘later that day’

vii.              gave false information to Norfolk Constabulary about alleged threats to kill by Mr Fulcher

viii.            delayed for almost two years in bringing a legitimate claim by Mr Fulcher against Fenland District Council

ix.                deliberately failed to bring a claim despite being instructed to do so by his client

x.                  conspired with Eastern Counties Finance to create fraudulent documents relating to loans

xi.                conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss Mr Fulcher’s application to strike out a bogus claim brought by E.ON on a stolen meter which does not exist on the farm

xii.              conspired with HHJ Nicholas Coleman to find Mr Fulcher guilty in his Appeal to Norwich Crown Court

xiii.            conspired with George Sorrell of Credence Law Group to fail to produce a Defence Statement and seek full Disclosure from the Crown

xiv.            conspired with Gavin Cowe of FisherCowe to fail to produce a Defence Statement and seek full Disclosure from the Crown

xv.              conspired with Magistrates at Norwich Magistrates’ Court to find Mr Guilty of Threats to Kill and Harassment where no evidence existed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of such crimes

xvi.            conspired with Jonathan Eales of Kenneth Bush Solicitors to make unfounded allegations against Mr Fulcher

xvii.          conspired with Gordon Dean Solicitors to further delay Mr Fulcher’s claim against Fenland District Council

xviii.        conspired with Gordon Dean to further delay Mr Fulcher’s claim against Fenland District Council by applying for an illegal Set Aside on a bona fide court Judgment

xix.            conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to create illegal Set Aside documents to appear as if they were bona fide documents from the Court in order to prevent Mr Fulcher from obtaining the £270,000 awarded to him in a Court Judgment against Fenland District Council and thereafter unlawfully attempting to make Mr Fulcher bankrupt

xx.              conspired with Kirby & Haslam to bring about a bogus money claim

xxi.            conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to arrest Mr Fulcher, bring false allegations against him, allow armed police on to his farm on 01 August 2013 where the unlawful arrest of Brian Pead was made for criminal damage, AFTER Mr Fulcher had telephoned the police to report criminal damage by operatives claiming to be from the electricity company E.ON

xxii.          conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have Trading Standards bring unfounded allegations of animal cruelty against Mr Fulcher

xxiii.        conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have officers from Norfolk Constabulary accompany council officers from Trading Standards whenever they visited Ramblewood Farm

xxiv.        conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have Trading Standards and Norfolk Constabulary harass Mr and Mrs Fulcher with numerous unwarranted visits to Ramblewood Farm without the consent of the owners

xxv.          conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss photographic evidence of theft of a meter at his farm during the hearing to strike out E.ON’s fraudulent claim held at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013 (Claim number: 3KL00178)

xxvi.        conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss bona fide evidence of false representation by E.ON during the hearing to strike out held at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013 (Claim number: 3KL00178) in that E.ON entered into Court demonstrably false evidence of an alleged debt owed by Mr Fulcher for the consumption of electricity on a meter which does not exist on the farm

xxvii.      conspired with HHJ Nicholas Coleman of Norwich Crown Court to disallow witnesses as to fact and crucial disclosure in preliminary proceedings before a criminal Appeal against conviction of Threats to Kill and Harassment

xxviii.    conspired with Stephen Bett in order that Norfolk Constabulary did not report any crimes perpetrated AGAINST Mr L.R.V. Fulcher

xxix.        conspired with Stephen Bett in order that Norfolk Constabulary did not report any crimes perpetrated AGAINST Mrs K.A. Fulcher

We refer you to precedents in these matters:

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10544657.Dave_McLuckie_jailed_for_eight_months_for_perverting_the_course_of_justice/

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10503978.Judge_in_court_accused_of_perverting_course_of_justice_in_Huhne_case/

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/solicitor-faces-jail-perverting-course-1841076

SAMANTHA RAINBIRD, Investigator with E.ON Energy Suppliers

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

Perverting the Course of Justice

Samantha RAINBIRD, between 01 July 2013 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she:

(i)                 contacted King’s Police officers before any crime had been committed

(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of E.ON yet provided no such identification

(iii)             provided false information to police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             provided false information to Leonard Richard Fulcher and Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to falsely imprison Brian Pead

(vi)             conspired with others to cause actual bodily harm to Brian Pead

(vii)           conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(viii)         conspired with others to create a false and malicious witness statement

(ix)             created a false and malicious witness statement

(x)               caused criminal damage to a gate at Ramblewood Farm

(xi)             caused criminal damage to a car belonging to E.ON

(xii)           failed to report an accident she had caused

(xiii)         failed to report careless driving

(xiv)         failed to provide an evidential specimen

(xv)           failed to give permission for a laboratory test