|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 5, 2015 21:48:10 GMT
A better focal length photograph comparison, done today 05 November 2015 The device does not record the F-stop data in the image file, i have checked. But this is an example of around the full max & minimum F-stops. (focal length) effects on the light being returned into the device lens.  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 6, 2015 18:27:58 GMT
Unloading in Castleford. Traffic warden says this is legal, as no yellow strips on the curb. As I AM WORKING & UNLOADING. - granted. Parking Warden unloading questions. Castleford. In comparison of being allowed to stop on a hard shoulder without needing permission if doing political working for a petition.  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 6, 2015 18:58:51 GMT
Ive just had a phone call from West Yorkshire police, Huddersfield police station regarding some footage I got of their police VAN speeding 42Mph (& the parking sign changing to 42 for the car park) and they are Reckoning that - THEIR SAT NAV TRACKING SAYS HE WAS NOT SPEEDING AT THE TIME.
So I have had to explain about this "geordie" speed camera expert who I met at Chorley Magistrates" court who said that SATNAV TRACKING FITTED TO VEHICLES is not worth anything in a court.
But This police officer on the phone is saying that "THEIR IS" ! But it DOES NOT SHOW THEIR OFFICER SPEEDING!
(& they cannot disclose the information BTW)
SO WHY ISNT OUR SAT NAV TRACKING OF THE VEHICLE AT OSSETT AND HASLINGDEN VALID IN COURT THAT I PROVIDED TO SHOW I WAS DRIVING AT 4Mph LESS THAN THE POLICE LASER ON BOTH OCCASIONS?!
AGAIN.. THIS IS ONE SET OF RULES FOR THE POLICE AND ANOTHER SET OF RULES FOR THE PUBLIC...
Also this officer seemed to know nothing about my Political campaign, website or associated events.. even though he had seen the Youtube video.. He suggested I take it down as it shows I am speeding!
BUT, APPARENTLY A DEVICE MUST BE HOME OFFICE APPROVED! BUT NOW HE RECKONS THAT THEY CAN USE THE YOUUBE VIDEO IF THEY WANT! BUT THAT SHOWS BOTH THE POLICE AND I AM SPEEDING, BUT I AM DOING SO FOR LAWFULL REASON OF EXCUSE TO GET EVIDENCE FOR MY POLITICAL PETITIONS & LEGAL CASE...
WE ARE BACK THE THE SAME PROBLEM HERE...
1. When it is against you, the police do what they want.
2. When it is against the police, nothing is valid, what so ever at all, in complete contradiction.
stupid.
We need to find the Name of this "speed camera expert". from Newcastle or the North East.
Not that you would get much more out of him as he is a biggot and a liar also a pratt.
I have a feeling that this problem is one and the same. A people problem.
ONE MAJOR THING FROM THIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IS THIS...
According to the officer I spoke to...
THE POLICE SAT TRACKING OF VEHICLES APPARENTLY *IS* ACCURATE AND CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE FOR THE SPEED OF THEIR OWN VEHICLES! OR THEIR SYSTEM IN SPECIFIC!
SO THAT MEANS THAT EVERY SINGLE SPEEDING POLICE MOTORCYCLE IS TRACKED AND THE TRACKING CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF THE POLICE VEHICLE SPEED IN COURT! Only.... They dont wish to disclose that evidence (like when I was in Middlesborough & a police car watched another speeding ina 50mph zone! That I complained about as well...
There is NO reasoning with these individuals.. they Cut their jib to how they want it to be Every time, in any way they want to, for whatever outcome they want. No hold BARRED, no evidence that cant be used in completely opposite contradiction each time to their rules. How They want to.
To them ANY piece of evidence, ideo, tracking or ANYTHING is simply like a "screwdriver"
If they want to go one way with it... they will use it for this or that...
If they dont want to go another way with the same thing... Then NO. it cannot be used for this or that, which previously it was.
NOT THE ACTUAL REAL TRUTH OF FACT.
IT WILL BE USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU. NOT COULD BE, CAN BE, OR WILL BE...
But then.. IT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE POLICE FOR THE SAME THING EXACTLY...
THE POLICE ARE IMMUNE FROM THE LAW. LAWLESS. THERE IS NO LAW THAT CONSTRAINS THEM, THERE IS NO TRUTH BUT THEIR WORD AND THEIR WILL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 6, 2015 19:14:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 6, 2015 21:18:19 GMT
Warning signs for LIGHTS. I am pretty certain that if the WARNING signs are not erect and maintained that, if you have an accident.. it is not your fault & the council are open for litigation, which means you cannot be fined or prosecuted as well if you have an accident and that would INCLUDE traffic light offences. As a warning sign is compulsory? but tell me where it says it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 7, 2015 18:54:23 GMT
A64 York. mobile speed camera "Doppleganger" of the court speed camera expert "geordie glasses" guy. Who travels around the country. I ask him questions and he tries to cover up figures on clipboard. But agrees that if you are prosecuted and you are within the threshols YOU CAN GET THE N.I.P. withdrawn!  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 7, 2015 18:57:08 GMT
TESTING OF "YOUR SPEED" signs in a car instead of VAN, to compare. I have posted quite a few different videos of "your speed" signs and they are never correct. ONE WAS saying 50mph! at my 30mph! This time I test with my mums car & still incorrect! And not consistently incorrect, either.. all kindsa different readings. There is no doubt that the "tolerance" setting & other settings can be played with as well to get any readings the police & council want. Also these deices are rarely re-calibrated to each specific location. I went to test the electronic speed sign out & IT DID SHOW SLOWER SPEED THAN THE SPEEDO, JUST LIKE THE VAN, BUT WITH A DIFFERENT MARGIN OF A MILE PER HOUR OR 2. I did 3 tests and recorded 2 of them, i think? Anyway... Your speed sign says 27mph speedo says 34mph SEVEN MPH DIFFERANCE?! check the video to see if i am correct or not! Your speed sign says 27mph speedo says 30mph - THEN 3mph this next time! The thing is my MUMS SPEEDO DOESNT EVEN SAY 30mph! just a RED LINE?! Whhaa!!   There are NO NUMBERS ON THERE HARDLY! manufacturer for or against speed cameras? which? |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 9:52:25 GMT
WINSFORD RED LIGHT CAMERA OFFENCE This website says you must be completely CLEAR of the stop line, for the first photo, for it to be a RED light offfence and i am not clear of the line at all in the photograph they sent. This backs up the fact i was within 1 second as well, and couldnt have seen the red light as the police camera photo sata 0.78 seconds. LINK> www.copradar.com/redlight/ This is from the actual literature on traffic light offences and the "informatio"n on how they work is mysteriously "down" on the police website for Cheshire, link not working. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 10:22:51 GMT
Notice Reference Full Name _______ Date of Birth ________ 1st line of your address and Post Code ______ REF:0073050111034920 ___________________ ___________________ ___________ _______ ______ Cheshire Police Central Ticket Office PO Box 266 WINSFORD CW7 9FN 08 November 2015 REF:0073050111034920 WINSFORD RED LIGHT CAMERA OFFENCE Dear Cheshire police, As you have made an error in your offence processing, the N.I.P. must be withdrawn, with written confirmation. NO OFFENCE HAS OCCURED. YOU CAN NOT BY LAW PROCEED WITH THE PROSECUTION. AS NO OFFENCE EXISTS. THE WHOLE VEHICLE MUST BE COMPLETELY CLEAR OF THE LINE IN THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH FOR AN OFFENCE TO OCCUR. ALSO YOUR INFO OF HOW THE LIGHTS WORK IS NOT WORKING AND I STATE THIS IS WITH INTENT TO WITHOLD INFORMATION. THE PROSECUTION TIME IS 1 SECOND. AND THE VEHICLE IS NOT CLEAR OF THE LINE THUS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE RED LIGHT TO BE VISIBLE BY THE DRIVER I HAVE INTERVIEWED A POLICE OFFICER CAMERA STAFF IN THIS VIDEO LINK WHO CONFIRMS THE N.I.P. SYSTEM IS NOT. I REPEAT NOT AUTOMATIC AND CAN AND MUST BE STOPPED WHEN PROBLEMS, ISSUES OT EVIDENCE AND ERRORS ARE REPORTED TO THE TICKET OFFICE. Reasons. 1. VEHICLE ______ was NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR OF THE WHITE LINE in the FIRST PHOTO. 2. VEHICLE ______ was WITHIN the 1 second threshold timing and the time IS given on your photograph as 0.78 seconds THUS NO OFFENCE HAS OCCURED and the N.I.P. was sent in error. I have video evidence of a police officer stating that the N.I.P.s CAN be withdrawn when errors are identified or N.I.P. sent out by accident. This website says you must be completely CLEAR of the stop line, for the first photo, for it to be a RED light offfence and i am not clear of the line at all in the photograph they sent. This backs up the fact i was within 1 second as well, and couldnt have seen the red light as the police camera photo sata 0.78 seconds. LINK> www.copradar.com/redlight/"]http://www.copradar.com/redlight This is from the actual literature on traffic light offences and the "informatio"n on how they work is mysteriously "down" on the police website for Cheshire, link not working. It says you must be completely clear of the threshold line when the light changes to red, which i am not in the photograph. www.copradar.com/redlight/Also a police officer said that an N.I.P. CAN be cancelled if you identify any errors A64 York. mobile speed camera "Doppleganger" of the court speed camera expert "geordie glasses" guy. Who travels around the country. I ask him questions and he tries to cover up figures on clipboard. But agrees that if you are prosecuted and you are within the thresholds YOU CAN GET THE N.I.P. withdrawn by the police and not have to go to court! VIDEO www.bentcop.biz/A64.jpg" alt="http://www.bentcop.biz/A64.jpg also i am within the published POLICE thresholds time of 1 second. shown on your photo as 0.78 seconds. www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/contact/licence-return-enquiry/56-faqs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=526&Itemid=327YOU WILL BY EMPLOYMENT POLICY VIEW< READ AND ACKNOWLEDGE ALL PROVIDED LINKS & INFORMATION IN THIS EMAIL. YOU WILL BY EMPLOYMENT POLICY WITHDRAW THE N.I.P. AS IT HAS BEEN ISSUED INCORRECTLY. YOU HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLY. YOU CAN NOT IGNORE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED. IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BE INCLUDED IN ANY COURT CASE AS ACTING BY FRAUD ON ABUSE OF POSITION, CAUSING ME TO CONTRAVENE A TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER BY NOT PROVIDING THE REQUIRED TRAFFIC LIGHT WARNING SIGNS AND BREECH OF EMPLOYMENT POLICY. YOU HAVE SENT THE N.I.P. OUT IN ERROR. INSPECT THE TIME ON THE PHOTOGRAPH. DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER. YOU MUST COMPLY. YOUR SYSTEM IS NOT. I REPEAT NOT AUTOMATIC, HUMAN STAFF INTELLECT MUST BE APPLIED TO THE PROCESS. I HAVE A VIDEO OF A POLICE OFFICER ON CAMERA SERVICE ON VIDEO LINKED HERE IN THIS EMAIL YESTERDAY FILMED CONFIRMING THAT THE CENTRAT TICKET OFFICE MUST WITHDRAW AN N.I.P. WHEN AN ERROR IS IDENTIFIED AND YOU DO NOT FORWARD IT TO COURT. YOU ARE CAUSING THE COUNTRYS DEFECIT DEBT BY YOUR STAFF BIGGOTRY AND LOW INTELLECT AND LACK OF CARING. YOU WILL NOT FUND ANY MORE COURT TIME BY IGNORANCE AND MISCONDUCT. IF YOU FORCE THIS TO COURT, FOR REASONS OF "IF THE COURT SAY WE CAN CHEAT AND LIE THEN ITS OK TO CONTINUE DOING IT" THEN YOU ARE IN IMMEDIATE BREECH OF CONTRACT> YOU WILL WITHDRAW THE N.I.P. DO YOU UNDERSTAND. YOU WILL ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF THE FACT AND READ IT AND SEE IT AND ACCEPT IT IS THE TRUTH. YOU WILL NOT SENT IT TO A COURT WHO YOU WILL HOPE WILL BACK YOU UP TO GIVE SOME KIND OF VALIDATION TO YOUR LIES AND HELP YOU CONTINUING TO LIE, LIE, LIE AND CHEAT AND BREECH YOUR EMPLOYMENT POLICY. I HAVE SENT THE TRUTH OF FACT. YOU WILL OBEY THE FACT AND READ IT AND SEE IT AND ACT TO STOP THE N.I.P. yours sincerely Mr ____________ |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 14:57:32 GMT
van is nearly twice as long as car for RED light fixed traffic light cameras
WITHDRAWN, as incorrect. and prosecution discontinued. I am interested to know why the timing on police LASER devices are not even as accurare to these times & distances, thus even more space for errors. This length adds well over 1 second onto the camera time as its two cars!
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 15:52:38 GMT
ActionFraud is the UK’s national fraud and internet crime reporting centre.LINK> www.actionfraud.police.uk/Serious Fraud OfficeLINK> www.sfo.gov.uk/contact-us/contact-details.aspxOur address Report a serious fraud or corruption Serious Fraud Office 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BS SFO CONFIDENTIAL Email: confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk I have contacted BOTH these places & provided a LOT of my preliminary investigative information. I now have much more evidence of SERIOUS fraud in the POLICE, Ministry of justice & Local councils and Government. I have a feeling that these departments are "in on the game" as well. Because THERE IS NO OTHER CASE AS SERIOUS OR AS BIG AS THIS ONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD OR PLANET AT THIS TIME AND THE GOVERNMENT IS IN TOTAL DENIAL OF CORRUPTION. Misleading illegal, incorrect road signage in use with prosecution cases and legal abuse to drivers. I have also supplied the Serious Fraud office with infoemation on the Illegal childrens gambling games (claw Machines) The Action fraud website Is very mysterious. No body knows what it does. Or what it is doing. THUS I PROPOSE IT IS A SCREEN & SHIELD TO THE POLICE AND GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THEM. AS THERE IS NO OTHER CRIMINAL FRAUD THAT EXISTS THAT CAN POSSIBLY TOP WHAT THE POLICE & LOCAL COUNCILS ARE DOING TO DRIVERS AND MOTORISTS AND IT STEMS FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. I SHOULD NOT NEED TO WRITE TO THESE DEPARTMENTS AGAIN. IF THEY DO NOT ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE, THEN THEY ARE CRIMINAL THEMSELVES.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 19:33:33 GMT
I got a letter from the "seatbelt" course (association of chief police officers) saying I had payed for the course but not yet completed it. (which I am going to video the course, to see what people think of it) But I still think that I am exempted from the prosecution... only just like every other department, these people seem to send out automated style letters.... WHO are these people who get jobs in these places!!  I mean they dont seem human. Or have "initiative" or "intellect" other than the odd hint or code word for "I know but i will not do" Are certain people only selected for "home office" or other departments who will "cut to the jib" of this type of really unhuman behaviour? is it the "modern world" of professionalism or what? its a bit like the whole "London tube" thing... no one speaking to eachother. Only polish people. The thing is that THESE PEOPLE SEEM LIKE THEIR SUPERIORS ARE TELLING THEM BASICALLY TO IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT IS WRITTEN! LAW, LEGISLATION, HONESTY, TRUTH.. the actual policy itself.... Its like they are ROBOTS who are "NOT PROGRAMMED TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHERE THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR! Its like they are in fact TOLD or "programed" - NOT* to do the job! Like as if DOING THE ACTUAL PAPER WORDED JOB AND ACTIONS IS NOT ALLOWED, OR BANNED! THEY ARE *NOT THERE TO DO THE JOB. they are there NOT to do the job. Dear Administration Team, Yes I paid for the course and intend to complete it before the 12/11/2015 thank you. In the meantime, could you please visit my website www.bentcop.bizAlso please could you check up on some legislation that I am needing confirmation of which is 1. That it is the right of the people to petition the crown & all prosecutions for doing so are illegal. 2. if you are distributing materials for political, charitable or religious purposes then you are exempt from the flyering legislation and distribution permissions to work on UK roads REASON: the council cannot act in political matters because its staff may have opposite political alignment, thus why the law exists. and that you can not be punnished by law for petitioning activities. Delivery drivers, taxi and police are exempted from wearing seat belts in certain situations. If you are delivering political materials a police officer can not fine or prosecute you for not wearing a seat belt because he may be doing so in political opposition to your political cause. You can not be arrested in a POLLING STATION. (true) These law facts illustrate the underlying legislative bill of which they are derived from. If you are doing political work, you have certain diplomatic immunities from offences that have legitimate comparable exemptions. - Police - Bus - Taxi - Delivery driver (50meters seatbelt exemption) I would appreciate you responding to this request rather than ignoring it as the tax payer, I feel that your wage grants that I am paying you to do something other than issue automated letters out. (no offence) Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 21:45:16 GMT
LINK> www.driving-law.co.uk/terms/time_limits.aspTime limits the Police must comply with to prosecute youMany road traffic offences are purely summary offences and in most cases proceedings are taken by way of the laying of an information and the issue of a summons. Hence time limits are of particular significance since for various reasons substantial delay may occur before it is decided to institute proceedings. The point must also be borne in mind if it is intended at a later date to add further charges. Laying of the information Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise. The following points need to be borne in mind: It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R -v- Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B [1988] CLR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the Court, even though it was not printed out at the Court end until later. In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included. So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period. Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R -v- Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884. The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular: Section 6 RTOA 1988; and Section 24 RTOA 1988. Exceptions to the six month time limit Section 6 provides a special time limit for offences listed in Column 3, Schedule 1 RTOA 1988, and for aiding and abetting those offences. When it applies, proceedings must be brought within six months from the date on which sufficient evidence came to the knowledge of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings; but must not be brought more than three years after the commission of the offence in any event. Section 6 applies to the following offences under the RTA: driving after making a false declaration as to physical fitness [section 92(10)] failing to notify Secretary of State of onset or deterioration of disability [section 94(3)] driving after such a failure driving after refusal of licence under section 92 or 93 (section 94A) failure to surrender licence following revocation (section 99) obtaining driving licence, or driving, whilst disqualified [section 103(1)] using an uninsured motor vehicle (section 143) making a false statement to obtain a driving licence or certificate of insurance (section 174) issuing false documents (section 175). Under section 6(3) a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor, stating the date on which the necessary evidence cane to his knowledge, is conclusive evidence of that fact. Such a certificate is deemed under sub-section (4) to have been so signed unless the contrary is proved. The certificate should be signed by the appropriate police officer. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 22:06:01 GMT
26 november 2014 is when i sent the Chief of West Yorkshire police this letter (below) informing them i would be placing political stickers on speed cameras and they had opportunity to object (but in fact they can not) and no comment was made at all, not even an acknowledgement to my informing them i would be placing the political stickers. 26 November 2014 inform police chief in letter & start placing stickers. 22 Jan , 2015 incident with Alan White stealing my stickers and reporting him to professional standards is what causes my arrest, not placing the stickers prior to this date ( 2 whole months prior ) 31 July 2015 was my conviction date & later sentancing at Huddersfield magistrates court. I am now wondering what the prosecutors date of signing the prosecution charges is or was? And if 2 months between informing the police chief in writing, and Sgt. Tyson making my arrest (illegal arrest) is a long time to be deciding upon to prosecute, giving the fact that no additional evidence was required and they did not need evidence as I had written to the chief of police myself with full details! Letter to Chief ConstableChief Constable Office West Yorkshire Police Head quarters Laburnum Road Wakefield WF1 3QP Various letters between 01 November 2014 & REF:Letter 26 November 2014 I understand that my criminal report and charges constitute a formal public complaint in addition to my personal case and in addition to this my honest belief that the professional standards department is dysfunctional and not competent to carry out trustworthy investigations. I have found a website called West Yorkshire police - unprofessional standards with reports of other people having similar issues when making complaints. It appears there is wide spread concern for your notorious professional standards department. And in addition to the IPCC who also are critiqued my own experience not only with your department but all other police professional standards departments across the UK in the last 12 months has been similar in the nature of fact that they have an inherent habit to “not want” to be held to account or brought to justice for serious matters in their own force. I too now because of this true concerning behaviour and conduct have had to take matters into my own hands. I have already informed you I have set up some petitions to gather public support for what is nothing less that real corruption within the police and associated colleague based departments. It is very serious that I have no other option than to use the Law in the Bill of rights to gather petitions to force the government to take action through the Home office and Ministry of Justice and inform the wider public of the truth and facts that the Council and police are attempting to deny. Thus I will be protected from ALL prosecutions when distributing my petition notices to the public and in the public forum under the same powers that the council use to post notices. This is not in any disrespect to the police staff who do good work but to bring those within the police to justice whom are hidden criminals and currently evading accountability.
As stated I will be delivering notices to drivers of roads who have been effected by speed cameras that have been used incorrectly. All notices are petitions and I am within full legal powers to distribute and give notice delivery as best serves those persons, which can be delivered to public property (attached anywhere the council currently attaches notices)So far your professional standards department seem to want to say the road signs on the Ossett bypass are “adequate”. There is no such term with road signs and markings. They are either 1. Correct as directed by the traffic signs manual Or 2. Incorrect. The attitude of the professional standards department is the problem here, not the truth, facts, data or complaint. And as I have found out this is not isolated to my complaint but it appears to many many, in fact ALL complaints. Thus that is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that there is in fact a serious problem with the staff conduct and behaviour of the professional standards department itself. Reasons for problems with the staff. 1. Matters are serious and staff do not want to face consequences thus act to avoid consequences to themselves and colleagues. 2. As reason 1. Above continues there is more and more issues created that snowball to a point of no return where all avenues to real justice within the police are not an option because in attempts to hold pride and reputation by covering up issues, a path of evasion is created and instead of the issues being correctly addresses as they should be a new culture of corruption is born. 3. Culture of police to hide issues for reputation reasons rather than carry out correct discipline and justice. 4. Unlike the armed forces who are subject to heavy discipline the police assume a position “above and beyond the law itself” and act as if they have no one to answer to. 5. Now that the above points are in effect, continuous lies and deception and incorrect attitude to outcomes and behaviour when investigating complaints. 6. The only other possible alternative to points 1-5 is that the police are in fact intellectually incompetent and are not able to apply reason or understanding to their work in an effective way. Or the training is poor. Until the above issues are resolved I am very concerned that any complaints or criminal charges within the police can be undertaken with any truth, honesty or attitude aimed to solve the issues to the satisfaction of the tax payer. Please bring your police constabulary and staff under control so that they may serve the tax payer effectively and within employment policy or else the public will have to seek a new police force and staff. Yours sincerely Mr _________ Also I have reason to belive that someone has been hacking into my computer & editing not only saved letters, but even letters while I am typing them! like earlier, when I wrote something & it had been swapped around!  How can you prove it though? & how can you keep people off your computer if there is no trace?!  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2015 22:11:30 GMT
It was the incident with Alan White, not the placing of the petition notices that caused Sgt. Tyson to come after me. I reported White to Professional standards. It was because I caught him in the act of taking my notices to deprive me of signatures on my petitions.
I have reason to belive that it was no co-incidence that White was on the road at that time & place. I have reason to believe it was a set-up, as the chances of coming across him were slim, especially during working hours.
|
|
I mean they dont seem human. Or have "initiative" or "intellect" other than the odd hint or code word for "I know but i will not do"
