Tuesday, 9 October 2012

Inspector Brennan completely and utterly fails to investigate

Dear Mr. Knights,

Thank-you for your detailed response to my e-mail of the 5th October 2012
following my review of the complaint made by you about Constable Miller of
the Football intelligence Unit. As part of the review of the complaint I
examined the file that led to the issue of the Harassment Notice and as
previously stated in my earlier e-mail, I am satisfied that the actions of
Constable Miller were both lawful and proportionate in the circumstances.

The issue of the notice in no way prevents you from engaging in further
lawful and peaceful campaigning or protesting in relation to the Everton
Free School, a subject about which you are obviously passionate and should
not be construed as restricting your right to do so.

If I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter do not hesitate
to contact me.


Karl Brennan
Dear Inspector Brennan

I am shocked, appalled and alarmed at your reply to my appeal against the Recordable Verbal Warning. Not only is it apparent that you failed to undertake any kind of thorough or exhaustive examination of the evidence, you have also completely denied me any element of natural justice and you failed to consult me before introducing new 'evidence' and allegations. Your brief and cursory letter does not reply to any of the detailed points I raised. Therefore I really do have to question the professional standards of Merseyside Police's Professional Standards Department.

The central fact is that I have met the complainant Mr Packer for about ten seconds, please try and provide evidence of any other occasions where it is alleged that I have had meetings or contact with him.

The bias and prejudice that you display in your original letter is evident from the beginning. You mention my visit to the Everton Free School and claim that 'You confronted' Mr Packer's PA. Not, 'it is alleged that you confronted', but 'you confronted'. In fact the conversation was as follows-

Me: (Knocks on the door enters) My name is Richard Knights can I see Adrian Packer? I wondered if he'd received my letter?

PA: He's received your letter. Could we step into the foyer? (Step into foyer)

Me: Would it be possible to see Adrian?

PA: He's not in, I can get the Deputy Principal. (Goes back in the office)

I then talked in an amicable fashion with the Deputy Principal for about five minutes. If there is an alternative verbatim record of this conversation please could you supply details.

You mention my visit to Goodison Park as though this was some sinister event, as I have explained I went there to see Denise Barratt-Baxendale. The conversation was as follows-

Me: Could I see Denise Barratt-Baxendale?

Receptionist: She's not in.

Me: Is anyone else from Everton in the Community available?

Receptionist: No.

Me: I'll leave a note for her. (Writes note, exits)

If there is an alternative to this verbatim record please could you make me aware of it.

You mentioned in your letter about my use of social media. Is it now a crime to question someone in authority and ask for their salary details? If so every journalist in the country would receive a Recordable Verbal Warning. Please supply evidence of anything written by me on social media that could be classed as 'harassment'. If you are unable to substantiate this claim then kindly withdraw it.

In your letter you claim that my actions have caused 'the complainant and others to fear for their personal safety', please supply concrete evidence for this outrageous accusation. Also who are the other people, apart from Mr Packer? How, when and where did I give cause for them to feel that their personal safety was threatened? I was approached by someone who had been threatened by the English Defence League, vile postings on social media naming them, abusive phone calls, turning up outside their office and yet the police were unable to take any action, an interesting contrast?

Then there is the involvement of the Football Intelligence Unit, this is a highly specialist section of the police that attempts to counter football hooliganism and ticket touting. Would it be appropriate for the Matrix gun crime unit to enforce parking charges? In this case it is clear that the Football Intelligence Unit have not acted as impartial public servants but as a private security force under the direct control and influence of Everton Football Club.

In criminal law the standard for prosecution is 'beyond reasonable doubt' it is clear by your failure to produce any evidence, beyond conjecture and hearsay, that there is no case to answer. In fact you have acted as judge and jury and failed to evaluate or reply to any of the evidence I have presented. Harassment is defined as 'sustained and continuous' and recent case law has confirmed this. How is meeting someone for ten seconds defined as 'sustained and continuous'?

In view of your failure to conduct any meaningful examination of the evidence, the bias in your 'report' and the clear abrogation of natural justice, I am formally requesting that you pass the details of this case to a superior officer.

I am now beginning the process of taking civil action against Merseyside Police, undoubtedly this will make an interesting piece of case law when the complainant has met the accused for ten seconds.

Yours sincerely

Richard Knights

No comments:

Post a Comment