MY CIVILISED COUNTRY?
by Jacques More
I am going to share my story of how I came to be in prison for harassment.
Or, should I say, how I went to prison for not appealing my conviction?
You see, once convicted I was incredibly amazed (stunned), at how my country's whole justice system was geared to frame up, and so easily permit an innocent man from being a victim of miscarriage. I was not at all surprised that Michael Mansfield QC (QC when he wrote his book) that he named it Presumed Guilty: British Legal System Exposed. This is very much how I felt learning all this first hand. More recently another author The Secret Barrister (TSB) with the first book title of Stories of the Law and How It's Broken (2018) also shares this picture of a very broken justice system in my country.
I learned from and enjoyed both books as they resonated my experience, but though the TSB's prose is excellent and enviable in its teachability in the English language, Michael's work goes on to offer a way forward by looking at the French system: A less adversarial system. I highly recommend both.
I did not appeal, though I so wanted to, because my God whom I believe in, He resisted that move and I recognised well that it was His voice (cf. Acts 16:6). I obeyed.
Why He asked this of me, I do not even now know, not 100%, but I do have some pointers, perhaps?
Perhaps of these is the opportunity for the Complainant to own up, which in a sense she did if you read her private messages (see the last pics of the accompanying evidence page where she says "…im sorry can u forgive me ive made your life hell im sorry…") or, for the Magistrates to correct their own mistakes as a preferred way? Or, the CPS? I am not sure.
Could it be that all this happening and my resulting isolation was needful (or that it helped?), so that when the Lord cornered me, some years later, I was unhindered, to do the necessary 5 solid months of research and assembly of facts relating to the Greek word EKLEKTOS, to prove there are no "elect" in the English bible? I don't know.
Or, is it even for now, to help bring further into the light to my country - what I emotionally found so hard for so long to share, this very story - about my own society's incredible lack of civility and reasonableness with it's justice system?
But did I harass anyone? Well, having left the lady in question with a choice and there being numerous other complicated factors in play, I have never believed it to be so. Harassment is a separate offence in England than sexual harassment. It does not exist in many countries as an offence. It has to do with knowing or that one ought to know that what you did involved repeated behaviour intending to cause distress or alarm. I have felt throughout that had any one element of the English Justice System played their part completely and fully, all this could have been averted: Whether by the Police, the CPS, the Solicitors, the Barrister, the Magistrates or the Legal Assistant: any one of these could have made a significant impact to prevent my being found guilty.
To set the story in full perspective I need to cover some ground, otherwise the context is not present to prevent any "text" (as it were) being used as a pretext, as regularly happens.
I became a Christian at 14. I came from an unchurched background with no religious education, as I was in France till the age of 11. It is a secular state with no such element in their curriculum of Primary schools. In England I learned at school about this man Jesus dying on a cross. I remember this since, as a day boy in my first English school, The New Beacon School, I drew this picture of Jesus on a cross and I think, if I remember correctly, also of the two men on the crosses either side. I do not remember being told that it was for me Jesus died. I really heard that about 2 years later from 2 evangelists that visited my new school, Wildernesse School, also in Sevenoaks, in December 1972. This was Justyn Rees and Max Synclair.
At 19 I became British and renounced my French citizenship. England is my home.
As a Christian I read my Bible and prayed. I went to church and I learned about Christian teachings. It was not until the 80s that I had such a hunger for truth that I went to Christian Life Bible College and then worked for Elim Bible College, Capel, Surrey, partly as a means of access to their library and learning more. I finished my 2nd year at Christian Life College whilst I worked at Capel. It was a 3 evenings a week course in the upstairs of St. Mark's, Kennington, London.
I met my wife Sarah, of 9 years at the Dorking Elim Church, down the road from Capel. After secretly planning to leave home 1st January 1993, Sarah on grounds of separation made an application for divorce and the decree absolute came in the summer of 95. I have written elsewhere of how the Lord prepared me years before with two 3rd parties within days of each other sharing a parallel prophetic word which, though at the time, meant nothing then, these became a singular important piece of comfort when it all happened years later. The Bible College had moved to Nantwich, in Cheshire summer 87 and I returned to my trade as a self-employed car mechanic until I closed my business down in early 93 to write my first book Will there be Non-Christians in heaven? (What happens to those who do not hear?).
I took other jobs to make ends meet as years went by, first by employment agencies, then being offered posts and once also being head hunted to be a warehouse manager. But my priority had become to write what I had learned and was learning. To teach the truth of the bible, as I had seen what damage had been done to me and others who sincerely believed as true, something that is not. Between 1973 and 1982 I was part of a fellowship that went off the rails and I learned first hand how deceiving spirits operate (1 Timothy 4:1). I wrote about this in my later book Pink or Blue.
Following an employment agency short job, where envelopes needed filling with letters at a Serco Contract in an industrial unit in Beddington Lane, near Croydon, I learned of the vacant Stores Manager's post there. I mentioned my interest and started straight away. I had started to write my 2nd book by then Leadership is male?
All about women in church leadership, following a period of being a male advocate, I turned when the Lord taught me through the related passages (Psalm 32:8 is my life bible text).
In January 2002 in my prayer time I was instructed to stop work at Serco to write further. I handed my notice in. And that year I managed to finish writing about half of the book.
Now in 2002 news came out of a search for 2 missing girls Holly and Jessica both aged 10 in Soham, Cambridgeshire. The search was all over the news. Subsequently their bodies were found and the caretaker of a local school was later found guilty of their murder. It was horrible.
I lived a short walk from a wild fowl park called Waddon Ponds and to get there was a road to a small industrial area with pavement and some dwelling back yards backing this route. In the school holidays some children played there.
Every day I would take a break and go for a walk in that park and I also got to learn the names of the different birds that were there.
On one occasion I came across children who had seen me before and one of them had got hurt. I had 1st aid training in my previous job and went to talk to the boys. I gave my name and we spoke briefly. They went home: all was good.
On a Wednesday I went to get a haircut one day soon after this. I walked past the park and the footpath then led to another area which had a small line of retail shops and a barber's across the road. I forgot the barber was shut Wednesdays so, I walked back across the road and went into Blockbusters instead, where I occasionally went. As I looked at videos a Policeman comes into the shop and asks to speak with me.
I walk out of the shop with him and see a group of adults gathered a short distance away. These turned out to be parents of the children I had encountered and neighbours. The officer takes me with his colleague to where their squad car is and after talking with someone on the radio proceeds to arrest me on suspicion of attempting to abduct a child(!?). I am taken to Croydon Police Station and whilst in custody my flat is searched. I am released on bail. Some weeks later (months?) I am informed of no further action: there is no more investigation.
But this police arrest means this is on their records and can be used in a bad character application to a court. I know this as it indeed was included in a bad character application made before a District Judge years later. The Judge complimented the argument of the duty solicitor that represented me and denied the application.
Is that really part of a civilised society?
To have that kept against you?
Having said that, a few short years after the event I had a need to provide a DBS check and it was not there at all nor anything else. Maybe in an enhanced check?
A civilised society: Is it not time for a simple system of automatic de-arresting in such situations following a fulfilment of some simple requirements?
What appears to have happened is the parents talked with their children about the news of Holly and Jessica and warned them to look out for anyone contacting them. Something like that? A mountain then, was made out of the proverbial mole hill, which did not exist, but was perceived as a threat and it went from there.
Later in 2002, I ran out of funds and signed up again with Brook Street the employment agency. Unichem in New Addington warehoused and distributed medicine for the region's chemists. It is now named Alliance Healthcare after a period as Alliance Boots. They needed temporary extra workers to fill up shelves. It was ideal for me, as I am an early bird. Work started at 6am and finished at 14:00. It was a 5-10 minutes drive away. And soon a permanent post opened up and then a promotion too. I worked there until May 2007, up to 5 years. I was dismissed. It just so "happened" that during my paid suspension prior to that sacking I was able to finish the book. But up to that suspension I would spend up to an hour a day in the small hours writing.
My job was as a data processor and stock re-locater. This was in the inventory department. With up to 11,000 different items for sale there were fast movers like inhalers for asthma right down to slow and expensive items in cold store. There were seasonal items like summer allergy tablets for pollen sufferers. So, with an automatic picking line and multiple banks of dispensers, up to 70% of the products went through these machines and there were 2 shifts per day. My job with my immediate supervisor was to identify what had become or was about to be slow movers and relocate them to make room for faster movers. A great balance of physical and mental work, and the challenge was to keep up to 70% of stock moving through the machines, but all new products and all relocation work was our job. This meant we had trusted access to all of the warehouse.
The 30% of the remaining stock was picked by hand. But a constant movement of stock from goods in, on to dispensers and, on to physical pick up places occurred. Staff employed as pickers during a shift would prior to that shift, also help to fill up dispensers or shelves. There were very few permanent shelf fillers, one of my very first jobs there. This place was popular locally especially for mums because as 14:00 came they could then pick up children from school.
But a whole variety of ages and both male and female workers were present. But with a multitude of local ladies there was also cliques and gossip and a sense at times of community dependent on where you were in the warehouse. Sometime great banter and friendship occurred; some time aloofness and dislike manifested. January 2007 saw a new influx to the day shift. Among them was Kelly C. It was not until a few short weeks that I noticed my work and her work meant passing each other or working near each other regularly. I could not help but realise a kind of "set up" was going on. I did not plan these close work interactions, but noticing their special regular occurrence, I started to pray about it. My first thought was surely Kelly is too young for someone like me. My perceived response from the Lord was that this was not abnormal in scripture. I was not to despise this. We were both adults.
Early one day in February I was replacing labels for products being moved in the Controlled Drug (CD) room and unusually this early, another 4 or 5 people were also in the room. Now months earlier all the staff in smaller groups over a period were shown a film by the management about laughter and a positive atmosphere being conducive to good productivity (within reason). One of those in the CD room that morning was Sam of similar age to Kelly in appearance (they were both in the room). Sam and I engaged in friendly banter regularly whenever we came across each other around the warehouse. This day was no different. But what was different on this occasion, Kelly was nearby and the room size meant we were all near each other. In frustration and amusement that she could not respond effectively in the banter, Sam expressed suddenly "If you don't get off my case, I'll set Kelly on to you, to beat you up!" or similar words. I replied "Yes, please!" and noted Kelly's interest in the remark which though I had made it in fun, complimented her in the process. Now I knew Sam was interested in me which was why she wanted to interact, but the feeling was not mutual, but I was happy to be friends. Later on when Sam thought Kelly had expressed otherwise - in her perception that Kelly was not interested - Sam clearly expressed those feelings verbally in wanting us to get together. She confirmed what I had observed from her all along.
This CD room event was an introductory moment with Kelly.
Now I worked with a supervisor Steve in regards to all the data and relocation work. Our in line manager was the head of inventory Alan F. He reported directly to the Unichem local General Manager Mike T. Under Alan and also sharing a joint office space was another Inventory Supervisor, Jeanette H.
I noticed these path-meet "happenings" with Kelly were no less frequent, but now began to say "Hi" and share a few words as occasion allowed. It became quickly apparent there was a mutual physical attraction which I noted manifested in an extreme form in the same manner for each of us, on separate occasions. As I passed by her one morning, as she was at an automat filling up a slide with products, I found myself unable to physically speak as the emotion of being near her took over. I recognised the same happen to her a few days later, as I passed by and said "hello" and she could not respond. However, these visible manifestations did not translate into effective dialogue to permit a getting together after work. Not without a clear attempt. One Friday I was sent to the CD room to change a label during the picking shift - the most busy time - when items are picked within a restricted time ready for early PM delivery. Now by Controlled the meaning is that this is a securely locked area and access involves filling in one's name, purpose and time of entry as well as departure from the room in a log written within a book kept for that purpose. This busy day meant the tables in the middle of the room were covered in orders and their related products being assembled for the drivers. Staff members were situated all the way around the tables. I saw the log-in book on the furthest table and made a bee line for a space between staff to stand there and fill it in. Kelly just "happened" to be exactly on the opposite side of that table filling in an order. I started filling in the book and asked Kelly if she was doing anything interesting at the weekend (the next day). Kelly replied not much, perhaps seeing friends or shopping, and she continued and asked what about me: what was I up to? I said I wanted to write some more of my book (which I'd not mentioned before). This was all the time there was, as I'd done my logging by now, and this seen by both of us, I gave her one of my stickers of which I kept several in one of my trouser pockets as it had my web site address on. I mentioned that she could read about my writing on the web site. She thanked me, but said her computer was not up and running and needed a fix (something like that), but would look at it when she could. We saw no more of each other that day.
This was perhaps our first proper connection verbally as our work took priority and was not conducive to stop and chat. The following Monday, and up till then not knowing what she was thinking - there is a world of difference between what we feel (and show perhaps unwittingly to others as feelings), in contrast to what we decide and wish to do with those feelings - so, I was very encouraged when we saw each other that following Monday because Kelly visibly went out of her way to mention that she not only had taken the sticker home with her, but had placed it on her wardrobe. She worked by the end of one of the automats she was filling up and had been looking out for me to tell me this as soon as I passed by.
It was at the same place, days later, I plucked up the courage to ask Kelly if she would be interested to go out for a drink sometime and that I'd be glad to talk about the book I was writing. Her immediate response was her exclaiming "Yes!" then a small pause happened, perhaps recognising she had not meant to come out so enthusiastic, to which she added "Maybe": A further encouragement for me, but was it a clear signal of her willing interest? Her "Yes!" had been like a type of a loud Freudian slip. I was left a little confused.
I resolved to find a moment where and when she could be clearer to me. Now part of her new role in the day shift had been due to an increase of work in the fridge room area, an offshoot of the CD room. Kelly had been put in charge of early preparation of orders in that room before the afternoon shift. She did this on her own.
I happen also to miss out, one other time, as I happen to see her in the canteen in the lunch break on a table with few people there as I too was about to have lunch. I could have sat there too and chatted among others, but I failed to pluck up the courage to join her table.
So, being somewhat confused at Kelly's reaction I thought to be open and say up front that I was interested in her, so if she wanted to reciprocate, she would know where I was coming from. A good time I thought for her to say "no, sorry I am with someone at this time"?
So, on the new Friday, I decided to go in the CD room and ask her and await there for her reply rather than ask and fly by. But, I had no reason to be in the CD room or fridge that morning for work, so I did not record my entry or exit and, it was there on her own I asked Kelly if she would like to go out for a drink that evening or over the weekend. She said she was going out with her friends and having now made myself fully be in the open with my interest - that now being without doubt - I felt I had played my part. Since Kelly said she had plans with her friends I expressed "I hope you have a great time with your friends" and I departed. The shift, a few hours later, was unusual that day in that I was, during that time, sent to adjust and prepare channels on the automat for products to be placed there. Shift time is a manic time of picking products and the automat is operating during all that time. So it is not regular to adjust channels during the shift. Also unusual was Kelly was asked to do "exceptions" in that very shift which meant anything the automat failed to pick up had to be manually picked up from the reserve stock next to the automat for that missing product. This meant Kelly had to walk past me several times as I was adjusting channels. I was glad for that time. For me, it was an opportunity not to engage and interfere, and demonstrate by that I was giving her space. After what she had said that morning, the last thing she would have wanted was any more seeking of her attention. I was pleased she was able to see that I was leaving her with a choice and not imposing on her.
But, I was confused in view of Kelly's previous "Yes", let alone her "maybe", and her desire to mention of putting my sticker on her wardrobe and then, her not saying what she wanted. But what really played on my mind was I had gone to see her in the fridge room without signing in or out, having had no immediate business there that morning. I had never done that before. But Kelly not having said any kind of "no" left me unable to close the door. I then saw her the following Tuesday as she entered the building and gave her a disused label. As I moved stock from one place to another a location label was changed, so disused ones were collected in my pocket to then dispose of. I wrote my number on the back of the label and wrote that I also did rock climbing and salsa. This I gave to her as she came in to work that morning. Her reaction was polite and courteous as she accepted it and went her way.
But as I had gone into the CD room without logging it in I felt that I should tell my in line manager Alan F. what I had done and why. I don't remember thinking about the CCTV cameras as I knew my immediate supervisor Steve himself did not always log his own entries and I was also trusted, but I had always been meticulous about this procedure and had failed to record my entry and this played on my mind. So, that day, on Tuesday 6th March 2007, I went to see my in line manager to have a chat with him.
Unknown to me at that time, Kelly already had a boyfriend. She had not said.
Jesus said that we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). I am not sure I have been that wise. When my mum and dad divorced, my 2 sisters and I were very young. So that I grew up without brothers or a dad. And uncles were in distant places. When we moved to England we carried on moving a total of 7 times until my mum changed her career in the commercial world to be a House Mother in a school for the physically handicapped, where we lived in the grounds until I left home. At 18 the fellowship I had joined had a leader who "asked" me to live with a fellowship family in Sevenoaks. And in the next 9 years until 1982 this secluded fellowship was all I knew, which in its final years meant all I did was work on cars morning, noon and night except for meetings. I trained and I have a Diploma in Automobile Engineering and Motor Retail Trade Management. I am an FTC (City and Guilds). In this kind of course, there are no holidays, but periods in industry and being in the fellowship there was none of your "own time". I never got to know of the first 2 Star Wars movies until years later (I love sci-fi). This is all to say I have not known a milieu, an environment, where I could learn a good number of social norms. This led me to make a number of mistakes at Unichem and later.
Instead of experiencing and learning how to behave into society norms, I learned about spiritual deception (this fellowship I mentioned had gone off the proverbial rails) and I learned that by severe personal experience - I share all this in my book (as mentioned earlier - the full title now) Pink or Blue an autobiographical look at how deception operates. This made truth my life passion but primarily in terms of what the Bible says. But as a dedicated follower of the Lord this meant if I knew He wanted something, and I knew it for sure, I was faithful in pursuing that until I knew it could not be. This is a world apart from being obsessive. When the element of choice is released to others, not to continue interest when not informed of the true intent of the other is to be unfaithful to the One who had made His will known.
To go with this article I have a separate document named My Civilised Country? The Evidence Page. It is a compilation of pictures of documents that relate to this story. The first one more accurately quotes the definition of harassment and makes mention of "the same knowledge" as a test in law. This is the knowledge of the Defendant and no one else's. I say this as my previous paragraph helps to picture what my knowledge was and it is thereby, fully relevant to the matter.
Mistakes I made at Unichem include complaining about an unfriendly supervisor whilst with so many people and personal politics in effect, this made me a target. I am sorry I made that complaint. Another was mentioning the above event with the police to my online manager (more on that in a moment).
I decided (foolishly I now know) to share what had transpired with my in line manager, and about the fridge access infraction. In my naivety I held that meeting with Alan. As I mentioned my failure to log, he appeared wholly without concern that I had not done so. He appreciated I should want to let him know. However, his interest arose in my mentioning Kelly, and it felt strange. He asked me an unexpected question. He asked "Have you ever been in trouble with the Police?" Being a lover of truth and openness (but now wish I had never shared that) I briefly had time to tell of my afore mentioned arrest. And that no further action was the result, but there was no time for the full story. We ran out of time as this chat time was deliberately held by us during Jeanette's lunch break for greater privacy and she was due back any moment.
A nugget in my Police interview 21st August 2007 is DC Nigel A saying,
“I can confirm that you have not got a criminal record.”
Between 13:54 & 17:12
Then, it all began.
In view of the earlier politics involving the supervisor I complained about, Jeanette H. as a friend of that supervisor was then told what I shared with Alan that morning (they shared that office and worked closely together). This is my understanding. Jeanette made a statement in court (later on) that this story with the police was told by me a year earlier with others present. Alan is the only one I told this to and that not completely. Jeanette tried to cover up what she did with the story. In that court Alan owned up to my telling him this then, but to managers at Unichem he was adamant I never shared it with him: More on that.
It so "happens" I could not leave on time at 14:00 that day, and so it was about 14:05 that I clocked off. As I passed the canteen glazed door to get to the clocking machine, I spotted Jeanette having just gone through that door. The passageway in the canteen was another way to get to her and Alan's office. As Jeanette herself saw me through the glazed door passing by, her demeanour instantly changed, to what is perhaps best described as "livid rage". This took me by surprise and made me pause. The door was shutting and, as I looked ahead of Jeanette through the pane of glass, I noticed Kelly way ahead of Jeanette about to exit the canteen, nearer the offices. She was walking behind Wendy C. a fellow work colleague who, like Jeanette and I, worked for the Inventory department. Kelly worked in the Service Delivery Department and the contract handbook for each employee specifies the process of complaint's first port of call is to be in touch with one's immediate supervisor (in the same Department): a pointer to Jeanette's orchestrating of the "complaint" of which I was about to learn the next day. Kelly turned to see Jeanette angry and I could not help notice Kelly's look of surprise/wonder as to what (on earth) could have caused Jeanette to be visibly upset like that. Kelly did not see me. I remember walking on - my side of the door - not understanding (in the moment) what I had seen. But I also remembered I had made clear to Alan that having made my offer to Kelly clear and given her the means to contact me, there was no longer any further need in my effort to see if Kelly might be interested. It was now fully up to her. So that if this walk to the offices with Kelly was about that, then Alan was already equipped to re-assure her. I now suspect and think Kelly had been solicited to complain, that is, in order (to) afford her "protection". In his police statement later Alan said this was an "unofficial complaint" (again this is not Unichem's position).
I am glad I saw this.
I suppose in my naivety my immediate thought was if this is Kelly complaining then I have prepared the way. She could be told that Jacques shared his side and was happy to move on or, something like that. But, this would not explain Jeanette's look, as Kelly would not yet have complained.
As it turned out Kelly and I have both been victims.
The next morning I am called to Alan's office and told Kelly had complained and I was not to talk with her again. I was also told she had a boyfriend. And I thought strangely, he seemed also triumphant as he said that he had obtained the label with my note that I had given Kelly(?!). If this had this been given by Kelly as her complaint, then why this attitude? (I noted this demeanour, but did not know what this meant till much later)
Then the atmosphere changed. It took a week or two but it was different. I did not know what was happening. I saw folk avoiding me. I wondered, what is going on here?
But on two occasions since, Kelly and I were alone together. One where I was adjusting a dispenser and she was filling some dispensers nearby (something like that) and then, when we both momentarily for several minutes waited for a room to be unlocked. It was just the two of us. I said nothing.
But this atmosphere made me wonder if perhaps letting her parents know might help defuse things (thinking this atmosphere was about Kelly and me; nothing else). So I asked a guy called Billy if he happened to know if Kelly was a local girl. He didn't. This was maybe a week or two later.
The next day I am called in to Alan's office and clearly Alan said "Billy told Kelly and Kelly complained again".
I was now one strike from a suspension.
A few days later Billy and I were working in close proximity and I said that I don't blame him for speaking to Kelly. He said "I never spoke to Kelly"(!?).
This was my very first proof positive that not only had Alan lied to me, but something really was going on.
Now according to the Handbook every employee was given, if there is a problem with your line manager you are to talk with the General Manager. I went to reception and asked that Mike T. be informed I needed to see him and this was important. I return there again 15 minutes before I finish work at 2PM and Wendy C. now in the reception role tells me "Mike is now in and has Alan F. in his office". I leave her with a request to give Mike a clear message to call me at home as soon as he can this afternoon and that this is a very serious matter. So serious that I was minded to call the police.
This also made me write a letter to Kelly's parents when I got in. Now a few days before, I had seen Kelly in the warehouse greet Jean M. with respect. I had approached Jean and asked if she was a friend of the family. I had good conversations with Jean over time and she had lent me a John Grisham. I think it was his non fiction book The Innocent Man. She said "Yes, she knew the family and agreed to take the letter to them". I had no clue.
The next morning, having written it, I hand Jean the letter and I try and find out from reception about Mike the General Manager. The next thing I am called in the tannoy to report to the little office where Steve my supervisor and I do the data crunching. I go there and Alan is also there and says with immediate effect I am to hand over my access cards to the building and I am suspended on pay pending an investigation. I say that I have asked to meet with the general manager since yesterday and this has not been facilitated. I had heard he was in the building early that day. I am ignored and escorted out.
My suspicions that Alan and Jeanette had hatched a plot and that Mike was in the know were in my mind.
I got home and looked up the whistleblowing possibilities and related. I opted for getting in touch with the Company Secretary. I was told since I was now under investigation my earlier attempts to involve the Branch General Manager did not count and we needed to assist the investigation. Someone higher up than the General Manager was sent in. His name was Gordon C. and he came with the overall Unichem HR Manager Carol B.
After several weeks and several meetings I was called in and told that my earlier police story in a different perspective was in play. I was shocked. But, it now made sense of the atmosphere change. I was told staff had got together and signed petitions to have me be excluded from returning to work. So I filled in the HR Manager and Gordon about the news time with Holly and Jessica and, how it had all happened. They understood my innocence. But, in view of the stirred up staff (I suspected by Jeanette and her cronies) I was asked about my long term hopes in work. I mentioned my writing and stuff. I was then told of a figure (it turned out up to £7,000) as an offer was to be sent in writing overnight, that is if I walk away, with no blame to myself nor the company.
I received the letter and I refused. Accepting would mean the plotters could get away with it and do this to someone else. So instead, fairly quickly following that, I was dismissed on extraordinary grounds: that they could not guarantee my safety if I returned.
Soon after knowing the staff had heard of the arrest story in a perverted form, I wrote a letter to Mike T. as branch manager and requested it be posted for the staff to read.
I appealed. I got nowhere with that. But this appeal revealed the truth of the plot and attempts by both Alan F. and Jeanette H. to cover it up. Revealed to me that is, as the senior management were taking their word as truth. But later, both what Alan and Jeanette said in court contradicted what they told the appeal and investigators: Plot and cover up proved.
What had transpired as an "investigation" was a fiasco, as there were no plans or processes in place of how to do this when there is suspicion of managers jointly involved in a plot. The first tell, at the first investigating meeting of this, was Carol (the HR manager) saying that "Of course, Mike had not come in to work the day before my suspension until a quarter to three" which is to say an hour after he actually did return and supposedly instead, he told Carol it was three quarters of an hour after I'd finished work that day as normal: my 2PM. Mike had told this to Carol to give the appearance of not needing to call me and not to be implicated in the plot. That very comment by Carol told me Mike knew of the plot. The other huge telltale that it was a plot is the persistent lie by Alan F. that he and I never discussed the 2002 arrest story, but as I say, I am glad that on his denying this again forcefully, when I appealed my dismissal, I have it in writing from David G. who was in charge of appeals (appeal for dismissal beyond Gordon C.).
Alan F. is adamant that neither he nor you discussed your arrest at the meeting on 6 March 2007 nor at any subsequent meeting...
Letter from David G. - Operations Director (in charge of Appeals) 3 July 2007
I redacted the surnames to a single letter
In court on 1st April 2008 Alan told the truth that we had talked about this on the 6th March, but Jeanette then made a new deliberate false statement instead, that I had shared that arrest story a full year before at a mealtime conversation. Funny that, then why did it take a full year before there was a dark atmosphere at work and I was put to Coventry by people and that just after the 6th March?
Can you get a more positive proof of this plot, then David's letter in contrast to Alan's testimony on the stand and Jeanette's new take on when the story was learned?
The very next portion of Mr Griffiths letter provides us with the story Jeanette fed at that "investigation":
...Further enquiries have revealed that in fact it was James H. who was aware of your arrest. James states that you openly discussed your arrest whilst in the rest room at Croydon branch many months ago. Since then, it had become common knowledge.
Letter from David G. - Operations Director (in charge of Appeals) 3 July 2007
Names partially redacted
This is why I asked for Mr James H. as a witness and Jeanette, (possibly on hearing James was being requested for help and in the event he gave testimony), she then made up a whole new scenario to throw off any pointer to her being the beginnings of the plot at work.
But why was the police now involved and why was this now taken to court?
Being dismissed - no longer working for the company - I was under no more obligation to not talk with Kelly and I was now in a position to ask for her help in gathering the needed intel to get my job back. The appeal had proved fruitless as well as my contacts with the Office of the Company Secretary, but I still felt I could attempt to resolve this "in house". Now, I did not have a telephone number for Kelly, but if I found her address I could perhaps meet with her and her parents and discuss the matter. So on Thursday 19th July 2007 I went to Croydon Central Library and asked to see the voting register. I then wrote down Kelly's address and decided to go there that afternoon and see what progress could be made then. I had no clue who would be there, perhaps Kelly's mum and Kelly herself since I aimed to go there after 3PM following the end of her work time. But I resolved in advance not to show or speak about how I felt for Kelly and only to seek assistance with information so I could get my job back. This is exactly what happened and Kelly, who ended up being the only person there and a few moments later her brother also (and her dog) ended up talking by her front door. In court on 1st April 2008 Kelly confirmed that all we talked about was related to getting my job back, but that was not exactly heard by the Magistrates (but more on that in a moment). When I asked Kelly if she would please help me to obtain information from Jean M. as to what happened, with the letter I had given Jean to pass to her parents, she agreed. Kelly confirmed what Billy had said to me in that neither of them had spoken. I also was able to give Kelly a copy of my letter to Mike T. that outlined the true situation related to my arrest story. I left Kelly agreeing to obtain an answer to my question and open ended as to how she could let me know. I pointed out my contact details at the top of my letter to Mike.
I resolved to return after the weekend if I did not get a call from Kelly. Perhaps I could meet her parents then? And so, on Monday of the following week, I returned to Kelly's home and I met with Alan C. her dad (yes, another Alan), for the first time. I went about the same afternoon time as before. And, just like Kelly had also asked me on the Thursday before, Alan asked how I got their address and I replied that, just as I told Kelly, I had gone to the library earlier that day, and looked up the voting register which is a public record. He asked me what I was doing there and I explained that Kelly had agreed to help me get my job back and was finding out some information for me. I thought not to return till 3 days later, and there I was. Alan said that Kelly had gone on a holiday abroad (or did I learn that at my police interview?). He asked me not to come to their house again and I have never been back since. I repeated what had been in my letter to him about both Kelly and I being victims of a plot and mentioned how Kelly had never said "no" directly to me. Alan said that he understood that is something I would want to hear directly from her. I was glad he said that - though not knowing Alan, could not be sure of his sincerity in that - I mentioned this and expressed that Kelly needed to be free to make that decision for herself and be given the opportunity to express that. Now, since the previous Thursday, at the time of speaking with Kelly at the front door, I had not said how I still felt and indeed hidden it. I needed to do so. So that, prior to my return after the weekend, I wrote Kelly a personal letter saying fully how I felt. And, just in case she was not there I had also brought an envelope. This being the case I mentioned to Alan I had this letter for Kelly and, would he pass it on to her for me, rather than my putting it in the post. Alan said that he would. I sealed the envelope right there in front of him and handed it over.
The next morning about 9AM the postman comes and delivers me a letter from the Police dated the 20th July (the previous Friday) but with the envelope postmarked as the 25th, but with ample postage for an overnight delivery. The letter mentioned that Kelly had made a complaint to them and I should make no further contact with her. I call the Station and speak with Officer Tovey at 9:12 informing Miss Tovey of the timing of the receipt of this letter. It appears the police failed to communicate this information to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) since they made the apparent writing of letters beyond the date of the warning letter as part of their case against me and have repeated this argument at later court events. This is despite copies of the envelope with the 25th July postmark being given them before trial and at trial. I also informed the CPS prior to trial everything else the police failed to investigate. Since Kelly's dad had made no mention of involving the police whatsoever, this letter from the police was a beginning of learning about him.
In court it was clarified that Alan C. had opened the envelope containing Kelly's personal letter and lied about informing Kelly prior to taking them to the police station. Kelly questioned separately and not present when her dad spoke, testified to not hearing about the letter till her return from holiday. What sort of a man does not inform you that they have already involved the Police when they say to your face they understand my wanting to hear Kelly say "no" directly to me (if that is what she wants)? What loving father refuses his daughter the right to choose the direction for her life? What father opens up all the mail of his already adult child?
But how much this was all about Alan and not Kelly did not fully become clear to me till a little while later. But nevertheless, I wrote to the police asking them to clarify this very point, even before I was ever charged, but they have never done so. I've even suggested they approach Kelly discreetly and meet with her at her place of work as a means of preventing Alan's knowledge of their contact, but to my knowledge there has been no attempt to recognise that Kelly has been subjected to a tyranny of her dad's own interest. To make his point (I believe) he set my car on fire in August 2010, just after I'd posted a Facebook (FB) update of having the Beatles "8 days a week" song in my head (there were no fingerprints discovered among the material used to set the car on fire). It just "happened" after I made that FB post.
So what happened next in the timeline of the story?
I was requested to be interviewed at Croydon Police Station by DC Nigel A. I was not arrested for this, but questioned and tape recorded which took several tapes (how long did it take you to read the above?). Kelly had already been interviewed and a statement produced on the 2nd August. This enabled DC A. to question me accordingly. However, to his shame and that of all the police practises like this, none of what I shared of the "plot" above appears to have been investigated. Worse, the very idea that I harassed Kelly at work, well mentioned in Kelly's statement where I am said to have repeatedly gone after her whilst at work following the 1st "complaint", could have - with simplicity - been confirmed or denied by the questioning and police statements then made by Jeanette H. and Alan F. (Alan's was taken 11th October 2007). Since that did not relate to their plot, Alan and Jeanette had no need to lie about that. In court Alan and Jeanette indeed confirmed there was no recurring attempt at my approaching Kelly following the 1st "complaint".
But, right there before any charge, the police and the CPS had a statement from Alan F. (my inline manager) that contradicted the statement by Kelly C.
The CPS say that a decision to charge requires the passing of an evidentiary test. How does these two contradicting statements from their witnesses pass this test?
Was this not a matter to return the issue to the police to further investigate?
Yes, of course it was.
A civilised society: is it not time for when the existence of proof is there that before charge an evidentiary test was not passed (and instead, a return to the police to further investigate was in order): that is, when a charge was evidently mistakenly made, then should not a defendant be returned to that pre-charge state?
Further issue here
Kelly's statement - in the light of the above about her father's influence - and the contradictory evidence from another statement, all can readily be seen as a statement by her of feelings generated by the pressure involving her dad. It is not a statement of fact. The cruel and tragic irony of the system of justice here, is that on a conviction, such a statement then becomes known as "the facts of the case".
Even though this very statement was disproved by another existing statement prior to charge and also proved in court as false, following a conviction, this very statement by the complainant is held by the police onwards and accessed nationally by them and known as a statement of fact.
A civilised society: Is it not time to record Magistrates criminal trials and thus enable the correcting of mistakes and observe easily how unsafe convictions are?
Is it not incongruous and abhorrent to have something refuted in court then held in police records as something with continuing relevance?
Of course it is.
What next? I heard nothing for 4 long months from DC A. and I sought and found temp work during that time. I did not see Kelly's statement for myself till the following year just prior to trial. I still had no clue in the natural where I stood with Kelly and, in the need to make progress there or find closure, and not hearing more from DC A., I looked at the warning letter again. It mentioned not to contact Kelly. So I did not. I read it as English, though it was now my main language, it is to me a learned language and, my interest in Physics and electrics meant that a contact was about a direct contact in my mind (note earlier mention of "the same knowledge" test). The nuance in the English that I later learned it meant any form of contact was unclear in the letter when I re-read it. And my knowledge was also incomplete as to the idea of harassment involving repeated action. But the Lord seemed to put in my mind, during all this wanting closure and being able to move on thinking that I should try and contact DC A. I was not understanding why I should do this (was I convinced this was the Lord speaking?).
But, I did not pursue Him to understand if this was Him and if this was really what He wanted. I now know it was Him and why it was best I did this. But I didn't.
I wrote to Alan C. (Kelly's dad, also at that point unknowing of his full involvement) and reminded him of what he had said to me: that he understood how I would want to hear from Kelly personally. I wanted closure. Could he help? This letter was 3rd December 2007. He did not reply and I made a similar request to a friend of Kelly's on Bebo.
It was then I was contacted by PC Patrick M. He took over from DC A. It turns out that DC A. had moved to work at another Station. This time I was arrested and bailed. I was charged with harassment. I wrote to PC M. before he did this to ensure that Kelly was acting fully of her own accord in this as she was an adult and ensure that this was in no way Alan's campaign. The idea to specifically ask that in a letter occurred as I prayed in hearing from PC M.
PC M. asked me to meet him at the station. That meeting, a day or so later, turned out to be his arrest of me prior to further interview. I was not re-assured he really did find out the situation between Kelly and her dad. Later, it was also to be discovered that DC A. had not communicated with PC M. about the "plot" by the managers at work, let alone PC M. having ever listened to the interview tapes. I saw that in court as he thoroughly blushed on hearing those tapes for the first time. He confessed he had not heard them before. However, I take my hat off to PC Patrick M. as on the stand, following his blushing (so did the CPS Barrister), in hearing my interview tapes, in that he confessed there and then, not only to not having heard the tapes before, but that "With hindsight he could have investigated the matter more".
As mentioned no records are kept of the court event in a Magistrates Court. I obtained a witness statement years later from the Defence Barrister that records PC M.'s owning up on the stand.
A civilised society: When in open court it is revealed the investigation had not been completed and the charge should not have been made - the evidentiary test now seen as not passed - should not an adjournment be automatic and a mistrial declared?
The court event took place at Croydon Magistrates Court on the 1st and 2nd April 2008 in front of a Bench of 3 Magistrates, the Chair being a lady magistrate alongside 2 male JPs (a Magistrate can equally be named as a Justice of the Peace - a JP). The defence had 6 witnesses to prove the plot and that there had been no harassment at work.
None of them were summonsed(!?).
I was alone.
Bl. Solicitors in Croydon had been instructed to contact each member of staff of Unichem who were needed as a witness to be supplied with a copy of my letter as written to Mike T as an introduction. They failed to do so. And, without a summons, who would be willing to help and speak up against managers of their own employer? The employer allows pay and time for a summons; not for a non-summonsed employee.
Let alone, in any false belief I might be (perversely) into children, why indeed should they respond freely? With a summons they would have a day off work and be paid by Unichem; not otherwise. But, why would they if they believed the false report about me and it was not countered in the first approach by the Solicitor? This was explained and made clear with the solicitor in charge at Bl’s of Croydon when I handed her a copy of the letter to Mike T. to pass on as an intro to each of the witnesses.
I mentioned the witnesses not being summonsed. The plot could then have been discovered. But had the barrister fully understood and had a copy of the Appeal letter I quote above, then right there, in court the lies of Alan F. and Jeanette H. would have been seen since they directly contradicted it. But I have found barristers in my experience to only listen to so much. Is this why after the trial he said to me that in an appeal, perhaps I should call on another to represent me? I don't know.
In his pre-trial conversations I suggested that it might be helpful to be ready with an argument in the event any mention that the age difference between Kelly and I was mentioned. This proved needful. When I took the stand on the 2nd day, the Chair of the Bench pointedly remarks upon our age difference as part of asking her own questions. She said something like or exactly as follows "It is inappropriate for someone your age to be interested in someone Kelly's age."
So that, in the summarised judgment, finding me guilty, the Chair said in no uncertain terms, that it is totally inappropriate for someone my age to be interested in someone Kelly's age - repeating what she had said earlier, then she also stated that I harassed Kelly at work and was dismissed for that (What???!!!).
The HR manager on the stand had outlined the reason for my dismissal as I mentioned earlier.
How can that have been listened to objectively?
At this my first trial I had one verse that came to mind "He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief." (Matthew 13:58).
Magistrates are volunteers with no legal background. In court with them is a Legal Assistant who advises on the law. It is part of their written contract to do so, whether they are asked for that advise or not. The first mention that our age difference was inappropriate was the trigger for this needed advice. It did not occur. This statement by the JP was contrary to law. The very law they took an oath to uphold. I did not know of this responsibility to advise without being asked for, until the Legal manager of Croydon Magistrates Court wrote me a letter explaining this and quoting the relevant part of their written duty.
Following the trial, I wrote a letter to the Magistrates outlining their mistakes. I asked the solicitor to pass this to the court, but even the barrister was unaware of this letter, so I gave him a copy, at the sentencing hearing. So, I was sent to prison and a written version of the judgment was requested.
When this written account was received no mention is made anywhere of the age difference and it is begun with words like "Of course, Mr More was not dismissed for harassing Kelly".
Words fail me.
A record of the judgment would fully contradict the written account, but only those present who remember can testify to this cover up.
How can magistrates correct their mistakes when they cover them up?
I was so green as to what was going on and how all this was being carried out.
A civilised society: A Magistrates court criminal trial recorded covers such mistakes by offering the opportunity to correct mistakes, then is it not time for recording contested criminal trials?
The Chair, this same Magistrate, insisted that she be part of the Bench at sentencing so, as the Clerk of the Court looked up available dates, one of her diary dates that matched was found: the 25th April 2008. And so it was on the 25th April 2008 that I began my first time in prison of a 5 months sentence (just 1 month short of the maximum a Magistrate's court can give for a single offense). I served 2 months since the norm is to serve half in prison and half under licence in the community and, at the time as the prisons were overcrowded, there was also an early release scheme for any who met all the requirements. I have many memories of my first time in prison. Some I will treasure. One in particular is, perhaps, the best compliment I have ever received as a Christian: I remember one time returning from one of the twice weekly permitted visits to the library (when practised as this was patchy). I sat in the cell block area waiting to be let back into my cell and in waiting I watched a game of pool being played by the inmates allowed "association" (time) at that moment - the Servery guys, since, when they were serving they lost out on such time - and one of them sat next to me waiting for his turn. He then turns and says to me "Are you a Christian?" I reply simply "Yes, I love Jesus" and then I ask him why he should ask me that out of the blue. He replies "I can feel the peace coming from you". I found the Lord very near during this time.
So, what of my further times in prison?
Following the 2008 conviction, a court order was put in place wherein I was not to contact Kelly directly or indirectly. This is permanently in place.
I have been convicted twice of a breach of injunction.
I do not remember exactly the circumstances that led to the first of these.
As I mentioned early on above, Kelly contacted me directly or indirectly through online friends, as per the attached example. I know I had an excuse for responding, but the exact details are no longer present with me. As the police were informed and the ongoing tyranny within the Kelly C. household was evident by this, Kelly continued to lie when not in private.
I contacted Kelly late in 2009 with reasonable excuse, but that excuse was denied publicly by Kelly and it was on this 2nd occasion in prison the Lord gives me a clear bible passage to me to illustrate why Kelly has been lying in court and had involved the police. It is the story of Abraham being among strangers and on two separate occasions he lies about Sarah being his wife. He says that she is his sister and wishing to imply by that she is not married. This was because his wife was beautiful and due to this he feared for his life. You can read this in Genesis 12:10-20 and the whole of chapter 20. The Lord giving me this understanding helped me put aside doubts that I went through since 2007. I was encouraged to go on believing in Kelly and I as "us".
I was charged with a "breach of injunction without reasonable excuse". But, until this was put in front of me, as the actual charge, by the Custody sergeant, I felt I had to plead guilty, as I had breached the injunction. But, when I read it with the exclusion of a reasonable excuse as integral to the charge, I knew I had done no wrong. I pleaded not guilty.
However, this was not a get out of jail free card, because and only because, this very integral part of the charge does not get investigated (nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt as not present either). Only the breach is seen and looked at in my experience by the Officer In Charge (the OIC) and this tends to be how the charge is handled by the CPS and the court, as if that clause is missing. It got worse with my 2nd breach.
Was a reasonable excuse paid attention to in the court? Yes, in that my side was heard and partly represented, but with Kelly's denials in public there was no hope of a fair outcome. A lack of representation was also a challenge too. Once convicted anyone in court again has a greater challenge to have a further fair hearing: it is as if only the breach is in view.
But, I learned about the charge detail.
And I learned that I could now appeal in the right circumstances.
I was no longer being resisted from doing so.
My knowledge that at the first I had not had a fair trial was evident.
The thing is I was a man wanting to do the right thing and knowing my God's will, I had no closure or knowledge of how to move forward here.
I wrote to the police and the CPS hierarchy with little success.
I was given an email at Scotland Yard to interact with.
So, when my car was set on fire, I believe by Alan C. I put together in writing my reasonable excuse and emailed it.
I wrote a letter to Kelly's friend Jenna. This letter was not mentioned to the police by Jenna.
My next one was.
The best way forward is working together to make things right. But, if at the worst I remained alone and again was convicted, I now could appeal to Crown for all the convictions. This was part of my thinking.
This time, as before, my reasonable excuse, though I clearly challenged the OIC at interview about this, was fully ignored. It was not looked at and just the breach was of interest. But I was very clear that Scotland Yard had the details of my reasonable excuse. They never interacted (This is the part of my complaint that was upheld by the IPCC). But I knew that the worst this could lead to was a re-trial at Crown by appeal.
I had put all my paperwork together and handed a copy to my local MP. If I was put in prison on remand I would have no access to my papers. This proved true as a bail hearing was given. I needed to not be in prison in order that I could prepare a defence. But, as I was in the dock, I could see in the distance the CPS representative was the very lady that prosecuted at my first trial. What I saw as she was near the Chair was a nod to the Chair and the Chair's acknowledgment. My only ever witness to such a thing. And, sure enough, as my case was addressed, bail was refused. I was to remain on remand until the trial, and then until sentencing and then, as it happened, I only had a few weeks more of a sentence after that (having already served most of it). So yes, I was convicted again with only the breach in view and though Kelly was questioned more appropriately, again she lied in public (without protection what else could she do?).
But, having placed my papers in the hands of my MP the duty solicitor's firm was able to obtain them from him and send them to me. I was then able to write and prepare intelligently. I instructed this solicitor to appeal my 3 convictions at Crown, since I was now in the place of having a right of appeal. That is, if they had filed it. There is a time limit to these.
At sentencing the Barrister employed, met me for the first time (this was my second occurrence of this practise) and she had no knowledge of an appeal request. She interacts in open court with the Legal Administration present. Unbeknown to me a reporter was present in the public area. In their remaining news article online, they made no mention of my appeal request, as mentioned. The barrister then makes statements I disagree with, but this not being the trial and just sentencing, and unaware of the reporter present, I do not intervene. These false statements are then repeated by the Recorder (the Judge) in his summing up. These are mentioned in the newspaper article.
Now, as I was able to prepare letters to the Judge as part of his summing up he mentioned them and says he has taken them into account. None of this was mentioned by the reporter or investigated further by them. This newspaper article though modified is wholly out of context as any reader of the above can see.
A civilised society: Rules governing news bodies like newspapers, made in a pre-internet age, are they fit for purpose when "court reporting" occurs? They inhibit rehabilitation, let alone truth of context. Should they remain online after a 12 month period when the Legal Deposit Office already retains them in the event anyone wishes to research?
A few weeks later I received a letter from the solicitor to say their licence to do criminal work had been taken from them.
Words fail me (or, is it time, ability and strength?) to describe how ineffective the CCRC were for me. Just look at Andrew Malkinson. Their remit needs a complete overhaul.
The IPCC (I think they changed their name), the Police complaints body, did uphold my complaint that the Met did not look into my reasonable excuse. But it is that body's returning that element back to the very authority complained against that proved ineffective… Just look at why Susan Deacon resigned. This reality is endemic.
I could discuss a little about the RCJ and the Justice involved as I filed a judicial review. The Justice failed to recognise the presence of the Barrister whom I had organised a summons to be there and, this Justice's saying "I did not know you were here" was an effective refusal to hear him at all thereby... It would have been good to obtain more of this witness' recollections of the first trial event and place them on record. The best I could do years later is as attached: it proves the OIC at the first trial owned up honestly. And, right there in the trial is proof that reasonable doubt was expressed as Kelly's statement was refuted as shown by the record attached that:
Jacques More heeded the warning of Alan F. and had no further direct contact with Kelly C. until the 19th July
Summing up statement in court 2nd April 2008
A reasonable doubt?
I think so.
The CPS in an initial criminal trial is supposed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt.
Since I was dismissed in May, this 19th July date is well after I was no longer an employee at Unichem:
Yet that refuted statement of Kelly's is held in police records as facts of the case.
A civilised society?
The least - I can do with this article and attachments, perhaps, is to provide enough, I trust, to show openly I should never have been charged in the first place, but instead the matter should have been properly and fully further investigated. The best - would be as I dream and, effective legislation is made, to cover all my "civilised society" paragraphs. The tantalising - is the recognition that my last quote in bold, right there, is a pointer to an attempt to subvert the course of justice? (Remember the JP cover up I mentioned?)
A civilised Society that has ample checks and balances to correct and/or prevent the innocent from being regularly found guilty: which tragically is the present norm as per Mansfield's book title. Not least of these prevention/correction capabilities is the essential that Magistrates Criminal Trials that are contested - where not guilty is the plea - that these are recorded.
The first rung of the justice system is the police. The unique system here in this land is that since its formation as a separate entity from the lineage of authority of rulers past, all that the police do (is supposed to do) is with public consent. There is no public consent for stitching someone up. Yet, that is the default now with our unchecked adversarial system. So new training is required and perhaps an internal overview of the evidence once the MG5 is completed (the MG5 is the summary form the police use to share the matter with the CPS). A further rung internally is needful to provide recognition of incomplete investigation and that such an oversight needs to be fully trained and experienced in noticing the traits of the innocent that enter the system. Such an extra internal oversight is more able to notice the subjectivity instead of the objectivity of the OIC (Officer In Charge) and thereby spot any existing mistakes before these are communicated with the CPS.
A quality system in a manufacturing process involves the regular check of a token amount. Why is there no such thing in every rung of the justice system?
There is hope
With the advent since 2012 of elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) that have the authority to terminate the employment of the most senior police officer under their oversight, an opportunity exists to inform PCCs and enable them to see how to interact with the force they oversee: to enable and re-create a police that is truly working with public consent.
My Personal Dream
Since the only trials I have had, have been at the Magistrates level, I dream of the CPS hierarchy (or higher) to note the error of ever charging me in the first place, or, the evidence that there was reasonable doubt at trial, to take responsibility, and thus initiate a Crown trial and there present no evidence. I can dream.
Bible quotes are from the New King James Version
© copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
© copyright Jacques More 2023. All Rights reserved.