[patriots] FW: Our Ref: CO0275

From: john TIMBRELL <johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 07:47:52 +0000

Only if you are interested. Ms. Hall is 'secretary' to the Police and crime
panel composed of elected councillors who oversee the police and crime
commissioner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JNCjxwwIs Video already circulated
From: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
To: d.hall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: Our Ref: CO0275
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 07:32:18 +0000

Dear Ms. Hall, Your Ref DH/AW
Thank you for your response dated 22nd. May.
I appreciate it being a Bank Holiday weekend that I may not have received a
reply from the PCC.
What concerns me is the reply you quoted from the PCC. This together with other
indications I have received from the public in Manchester leads me to believe
there is a cover up of this crime by the Chief Constable.
That being so I forward you the notice that I sent to the PCC. because I
suspect that he did not show you that because I believe your letter of the 22nd
would have been framed differently.

Consider if you reported a break in to a police officer and he asked you to
fill in a form and then if you had a complaint you should report it to a
traffic warden.
That is exactly the position of the PCC. He is obliged by statute to
investigate an alleged crime by the Chief Constable. Asking me to fill out a
form would have delayed my reporting of the crime and also would not have
allowed me to elucidate my complaint correctly. Suggesting that I report the
matter to the police professional standards dept. was an attempt to evade his
lawful duty. How could officers of a rank below the chief constable investigate
the chief constable?
Had this been an ordinary member of the public they would have been arrested
and the offence immediately investigated. I do not wish to patronise you but I
will state now why the criminal damage offence is complete with all the
elements of the offence complete. I will assume that you accept damage was
caused by breaking into the property.

They unlawfully. Unlawful because the police are not there to assist in a
commercial purpose.
They are only there to keep the peace and react if the law is broken.
If there was a court order for the eviction the eviction should have been
carried out by the bailiffs.
There were no bailiffs in attendance neither was there any evidence of a
warrant produced.
That alone should be sufficient to prove unlawfulness but there is also the
Criminal Law Act 1977 section 6 which stops anyone entering occupied property
without consent of the owner.
Previously in Gloucestershire bailiffs used to waive a piece of paper in front
of an occupier often with the police being present. Usually the occupant meekly
left the property. I served a notice on my chief constable stating that an
occupier knew the provisions of the above act and required the chief constable
to make sure that each officer attending a proposed eviction knew of the law
and followed it's provisions. Now officers frequently do not attend evictions
unless called by either party.
If one was cynical one would state that the police are in an embarrassing
position because if they examine the warrant it will be found not to be
correctly formatted in that it did not have an embossed seal containing the
court name which issued it and the name of the judge and the date. Most
warrants that I have seen are printed documents with the words "seal" and
"county court" printed at the same time as the form was printed. Bailiffs
download these forms and fill them in themselves.
I attended Tom Crawford's case in Nottingham on 1st May where such a warrant
was challenged.Also in that case the Bank was shown to be acting unlawfully
because they changed his mortgage from an endowment mortgage to a repayment
mortgage without his knowledge. You must know of the various banking scandals
where they are fined millions but no bank employee is prosecuted. Tom
Crawford's case highlighted that such frauds committed by the banks are not
uncommon. It also highlighted the fact that the police do not investigate such
frauds so that people like Tom have to take out their own private prosecutions.

Now regarding your position. You I believe are working for the elected
representatives of the people of Manchester. As such you are their agent whose
position requires you to protect the people of Manchester from injustices that
occur. Your specific job is to ensure that the PCC acts according to statute.
So far he has not shown any inclination to follow the statute. I urge you to
either make sure he does or do your duty and organise a prompt and proper
investigation. I know the complete panel meets infrequently but there is
nothing to stop you organising an urgent meeting that this case demands.
Yours Sincerely John Timbrell

From: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
To: info@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Our Ref: CO0275
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:28:50 +0000

NOTICE
Tony LLoyd. Police and Crime Commissioner Greater Manchester Police.
This is not a formal complaint against police. It is a complaint of crime. Deal
with it as you are statutorily required to do. My original email to you which
you ignored but has been sent to you via the GMP gave you evidence of Officers
from the GMP breaking into occupied premises and I gave you the act and section
of the statute that bars this. I also stated that the chief constable has
vicarious liability for the conduct of his officers and he must have been aware
of the operation due to the number of police used and the equipment used. Now
do what you are required by statute to do or be reported for misconduct in
public office. John Timbrell

From: info@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Our Ref: CO0275
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:58:26 +0000

Dear Mr Timbrell,

Re: CO0275

Thank you for your email dated 17th April 2015.

If you wish to submit a formal complaint against the Chief Constable’s actions
please do so by clearly stating your concerns. If you wish to make a complaint
against officers from Greater Manchester
Police please do so by contacting the Professional Standards Branch on
complaints@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or by telephone at 0161 856 2910.

Many thanks,

Lucy

This email sent on Fri Apr 24 11:58:28 2015 from Lucy.Phelan@xxxxxxxxxxxx comes
with a disclaimer. Please click the following to read it in full:
http://www.gmpcc.org.uk/legal-notices/email-disclaimer/

As a public body, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner may be
required to disclose this email (or any response to it) under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the
exemptions in the Act.

Please immediately contact the sender, Lucy.Phelan@xxxxxxxxxxxx if you have
received this message in error.

[patriots] FW: Our Ref: CO0275

Other related posts: