I suppose I should be grateful I wasn’t carted off in chains and charged like this poor lady was.
“It is simply extraordinary to witness the lengths that some people will go to protect their vested interests . . . . “
The WHOLE STORY on this link below is even worse but I have picked this account from the site.
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-
POLICE RAID AND ARREST In the early hours of the morning on the 26th April 2005, four police officers wearing bullet proof vests barrelled through the front door of Jane Bryant and her son’s home without an arrest warrant and attempted to drag her immediately down to the local police station. They terrified Bryant and her sonhttp://tinyurl.com/cde2h. They then forced her to sign a consent form under duress for the seizure and removal of her computer by threatening her with removal of her son by Social Services if she refused to sign. They seized her computer and kept it for a number of weeks. During this incident police officers also attempted to force their way into the bathroom where her son was having a wash, forcing him out.
[8] The next day Jane Bryant was arrested at Southall Police Station, her fingerprints
and DNA taken and she was subjected to a police interrogation at her local police
station. She was also set bail. Jane Bryant was arrested under the Harassment Act
purely for publishing evidence and placing it in the public domain on The One Click
Group website. The Harassment Act was designed to prevent physical stalking, not
the prevention of publication of evidenced material. During Jane Bryant’s arrest
and interrogation the police officer in charge of the case, one DS Bunkall, stated
that the police recognised that using the Harassment Act in this way “was treading
a very fine line.” Indeed. Angela Kennedy was informed by the officer in charge of
the case that she also was to be arrested at her local police station. At no stage
was Kennedy informed by the police precisely what the charges were against her. On
the very day that Angela Kennedy’s arrest was due, the police informed Kennedy through
her solicitor that she was to present herself for arrest at Jane Bryant’s local police
station, TWENTY-
While doing so they also changed the date and time of arrest a further two times on the day of each planned arrest. Eventually, it was only through Kennedy’s own representation to the Borough Commander that an eventual tentative agreement was made to arrest her at her local police station. In fact, she was actually never arrested, since the police did not have a case against either Kennedy or Bryant.
The above police action against two Mothers and their very ill children was instigated by a disparate, motley and secretive group spearheaded by Jane Colby of the Tymes Trust (ironically, a charity for Child ME/CFS sufferers) who approached the Southall police and the Countess of Mar, who approached the Special Operations police service for the Palace of Westminster police (SO17). Mar was advised by S017 that there was no criminal case to answer by One Click.
[9] Unlike the Palace of Westminster police, the Southall police nonetheless continued
with their actions. As is clear from the documentary evidence in our possession and
in the possession of our solicitors, both complaints were instigated as a result
of our legitimate criticisms of both the ME Research UK and the TYMES Trust charities
with regard to their part in keeping details of the outrageously damaging RCPCH Guidelines
secret from the ME/CFS community until it was too late to mount a public campaign
of objection to these guidelines. The Vance Spence/MERGE correspondence is particularly
damning.
. . . . the important bits to me are the answers to questions given by the CPS
and IPCC in regard to enquiries about the incident. + Legal Comment.
We have since found out from the Crown Prosecution Service that the police did not consult them before taking action against Jane Bryant and Angela Kennedy, that the allegations made by Colby and Mar et al did not pass the evidential test and that there was no case to answer. In fact, the police did not consult the CPS until May 17th, the day they informed both Bryant and Kennedy that neither woman had a case to answer.
Furthermore, we have also since found out that the CPS was never even made aware, by the police, of Angela Kennedy and any allegations against her. Unbelievably, Jane Bryant and her solicitors were both telephoned by Detective Chief Inspector Smith, Head of the Southall CID and told on 9th June that the case was being ‘reopened’ because the complainants were unhappy with the outcome. The Crown Prosecution Service later confirmed as per the http://tinyurl.com/9h4m6CPS Fax that the reopening of the case was completely untrue.
[14] Why did DCI Smith, a senior police officer, brazenly lie to Bryant and her solicitor as the evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service shows and cause further distress? On the 30 th June, Smith telephoned Bryant again and during this conversation, of which a tape recording was made, he personally threatened her. Who was pressing this man’s buttons in this way and to what purpose? Was he being paid and if so by whom?
It remains the case that neither Jane Bryant nor Angela Kennedy has any criminal
case to answer. Please see merely a small selection of the legal evidence in relation
to what has been done to these families. The ‘bundle’ is considerable.
LEGAL COMMENT
James Saunders, Senior Partner of Saunders Solicitors LLP, said: “Having the Crown Prosecution Service available to advise the police at the earliest stages of an inquiry has been put in place and it is indeed strange that the police would not take advantage of this in the circumstances of this case. The object is to make what the police do apposite and here they have raided Jane Bryant’s home, caused immense distress to the family and it turns out that it was all a mistake since as the Crown Prosecution Service has stated, no crime had been committed. Had the police followed the correct procedure, they could have saved their time, public money and saved Jane Bryant, Angela Kennedy and their sick children from considerable distress. One must wonder why the police elected to behave in the way that they did.”
In light of the irregularities of the case and other issues around police behaviour and procedure, a Formal Inquiry into this case is being carried out under the auspices of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Bryant reserves the right to sue the police for wrongful arrest and will make this decision at her leisure.
[15, 16] CONCLUSION This story is about the use of undue influence and the persecution of two women and their children by the authorities and others with no just or reasonable cause.
But who orchestrated this campaign? Precisely who, apart from the named proponents
of Colby and Mar, pulled those extensive strings? What was done to Jane Bryant, Angela
Kennedy and their families by Colby of TYMES Trust and Mar of ME Research UK et al
using the police to harass, threaten and intimidate those who stand up for health
advocacy issues, who investigate and who publish evidenced information and place
it in the public domain -
Did Colby and Mar act on their
own? The police state not.
How was the psychiatric lobby involved in this action
against Bryant and Kennedy? We know that Dr Charles Shepherd with his evidenced links
and relationship to Simon Wessely and the psychiatric lobby that has done so much
damage to ME/CFS patients was aware of the actions being taken against Bryant and
Kennedy as is evidenced by his emails. Who are the ‘et al’ in these disgraceful actions?
Who are the people who assisted Colby and Mar in orchestrating this obscene and unjust
campaign against two Health Advocate Mothers? This is a very good question to which
all concerned with these events seek answers and redress.
It is of vital importance to remember that these acts against both Jane Bryant and Angela Kennedy were taken by those whose behaviour has been legitimately criticised by One Click, in public. As such, these actions carried out by Colby and the Countess of Mar and others illustrate the depths that such people will sink in order to prevent exposure of legitimate concern being expressed about their scandalous behaviour.
They demonstrate the filthy underbelly of health politics, and the dark forces that are gathered, posing threat to anyone daring to demand justice. It is simply extraordinary to witness the lengths that some people will go to protect their vested interests and promote turf enhancement – political, medical, research and financial – with such sheer arrogance and disregard for the sick.
That the well-
To my own solicitor.
Don’t tell me there is no such thing as conspiracy . Can this incident be cited as the sort of miscarriage that now be instigated, with the now prevalent and flagrant misuse use of what was supposed to be an honourable Act to protect the weak? It’s all published in the public domain.
AND WHY the Crooks at Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifar Solicitors of Norwich. Haven’t got a snowballs chance in hell of EVER making this MALICIOUS prosecution stick.
http://www.piba.org.uk/assets/docs2/PSYCHIATRICINJURIES1111%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.piba.doc
48. So far the courts have not provided clear guidance on whether foreseeability is a requirement of this statutory tort, although the Court of Appeal has had at least one opportunity to do so. What is reasonably clear is that the Courts are unwilling to accept that anything apart from really quite serious misconduct is capable of amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act.
Conclusion on the validity of (harassment) claims under the 1997 Act.
55. The early indications seem to be that the courts are likely to seriously restrict the circumstances in which a claimant will be able to use the 1997 Act to bring a claim which would otherwise fail.
Sharma vJay (2) Wells (3) Medico Legal Investigations Ltd when dealing with an application to strike out the claim , Gray J defined what amounted to harassment in these terms at paragraph 22:
“(i) that in order to constitute harassment the conduct must be calculated (ie likely) to produce the consequence that the claimant is alarmed or distressed;
(ii) that the conduct must in addition be oppressive and unreasonable;
(iii) as to reasonableness, that it is incumbent on the claimant in his Pleading to allege conduct which is arguably unreasonable;
(iv) that the mere fact that the conduct complained of has foreseeably caused distress to an individual is not enough: the requirement to establish an arguable case of oppression and unreasonableness must also be satisfied if the claim is not to be struck out. “
And a nasty letter and a few jokes on the inter-
http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Merelie-
Merelie
v Newcastle Primary Care Trust . . . . 11/11/2004
I must next address the claim based upon harassment.
The provisions in the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 were considered in Thomas v Newsgroup Newspapers [2002]
EMLR 78.
An exhaustive definition is not possible and was not attempted. But guidance
was given. The paradigm case, of course, would be stalking, but other forms of conduct
may fall within the notion of harassment, provided certain characteristic elements
are present. It would seem clear, for example, that the conduct must have been targeted
at the claimant, calculated to alarm or distress the claimant and also, objectively
judged, oppressive and unreasonable (see e.g. Thomas at [30]). It also clear from
section 7 of the Act that ‘conduct’ includes speech.
21. At the stage of an application to strike out such a plea, the claimant must be able to put forward a pleading asserting conduct which the Court can characterise as arguably unreasonable in all the circumstances. If that crucial element is missing, the claim may be struck out: see e.g. per Gray J in Sharma v Jay [2003] EWHC 1230 (QB). As with malice, no one should be permitted to advance such plea on a formulaic basis by bare assertion only.
22. Another important element is that there must be pleaded, and ultimately proved, a ‘course of conduct’ which involves conduct on at least two occasions. Whether two or more instances can be classified as a ‘course of action’ will depend on such factors as how similar they are in character, the extent to which they are linked, how closely in time they may have occurred, and so on. It is necessary to remember that the mischief to which this statute is directed is that of repetitious behaviour. It is not to be assumed that two instances necessarily give rise to a cause of action in harassment: cf. in the criminal context, Pratt v DPP [2001] EWHC 483 (Admin).
23. Moreover, the Court will no doubt generally be wary of any attempt to present
as harassment, conduct which would more aptly fit within the scheme of some other
tort such as defamation, but which is not available in itself as a cause of action
for some reason (e.g. the statutory limitation period).
. . . . or in my case because
it was TRUE . . . and this was the ONLY way they could find. . . . to SHUT ME UP.
For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total Wankers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.
DISCLAIMER . . Click here
My claims made on this and other web sites are based on the fact that Metcalfe Copeman
& Pettefar ( MCP Law ) refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. They should
have no reason, unless to do so would embarrass them or their clients in disclosure
of lies, connivance, and conspiracy. In exactly the same fashion as the IWG, Denniss
Matthews conspiracy. I have asked them over and over again to tell the truth but
they have declined. It is reasonable and correct therefore to make the assumptions
that I have and that are printed through out these sites. MCP Law still have the
opportunity to refute these claims if they wish . . . Provided they can prove it
that is.
In fact the reason they didn’t refute them . . . is they were true. Lisa Richardson
DID Conspire to Defraud.
Their clients DID NOT buy the property at AUCTION and they
DID know about the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property. In fact they bought
the property BECAUSE of the dispute. . . . All this has been sworn to under OATH
by Jonathan Burton Solicitor at MCP. . . . But he calls it . . . . “Was not meant
to deceive.”
2006
2008
MORE FLAGRANT MIS-
I suppose I should be grateful I wasn’t carted off in chains and charged like this poor lady was.
Ever since the enactment of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (a perfectly
justified law to protect women (mostly) from stalkers) unscrupulous Lawyers and their
clients have ABUSED this Act to protect powerful people, directors of large companies
and even companies themselves from honest and reasonable protest or criticism.
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news531.htm
But the Courts are now starting to get wise to this manipulation. . . further they are no longer allowing the Act to be used to supplant an injunction that would normally be obtained for Defamation but for some reason . . . usually the truth . . . (as in my case) . . but could be limitation . . . can not be.
Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust . . . . 11/11/2004
23. Moreover, the Court will no doubt generally be wary of any attempt to present as harassment, conduct which would more aptly fit within the scheme of some other tort such as defamation, but which is not available in itself as a cause of action for some reason (e.g. the statutory limitation period).
THANK GOODNESS.
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no forms required to bid Auctioneers.
Contact Andrew
Mahon NI for details.
www.barnett-
Steven Grossman MRICS
sgrossman@barnettross.co.uk
Have a word with Steve about how to avoid filling in all
those nasty PROXY forms.
He’ll do them for you.
“NO MAX” bids accepted.
And he’ll
invent a name
for you too.
“MORE FLAGRANT MIS-