PC4226 Eoin Anderson and PC4524 Nicola Rimmer

May 23, 2018

This web page is published in the public interest. The facts are true. I have evidence to substantiate the facts and the allegations made. It is in the public interest that these matters are brought to light, especially when there is a cover up by all levels in a police force up to and including the chief constable and Police and Crime Commissioner.  My opinions are clearly stated as such and should not be taken as fact.  My opinions are formed on the basis of my observations and some are my deductions based on what I saw, read and heard.

There is evidence that PC4226, Constable Eoin Anderson and PC4524, Constable Nicola Rimmer of the Cheshire Constabulary are criminals.

I believe they committed Perjury and/or Perverting the Course of Justice by submitting false statements to court and deliberately lying under oath when testifying in court. But they are unlikely to be brought to justice because they have the full protection of the Cheshire Constabulary, including that of the acting chief constable, Janette McCormick, and Police Crime Commissioner, David Keane. They will not give any reason for their unwillingness to pursue crooks and criminals within their ranks, which is why I have no hesitation in describing them as a crooked organisation and suggest that you take great care in all your dealings with them.

On 7 May 2018 I was reading a newspaper article about the sexual misconduct and deception by undercover police who infiltrated a number of organisations. The police were described as “professionally trained liars”, and I have to agree that is the case. I personally could not believe the ease with which these two swore to tell the truth in court and then told barefaced lies sufficient to convince a judge that they were telling the truth. That judge was Richard Pearce and you can read comments on him and his judgment HERE.

Anderson seems to have some form for being less than truthful when testifying (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ban-for-chase-crash-cop-914669), when the court did not accept his version of his actions when he was convicted of driving without due care and attention. What he did here though is far worse.

The saga started when PC4226, Constable Eoin Anderson, charged me with a motoring offence that I did not commit and submitted a false statement for the prosecution to make it appear that I did. PC4524, Constable Nicola Rimmer was with him in the police car and made a similarly false statement.

The full details of the case are published elsewhere (links to be added), but in brief, here is what happened:

I turned in and out of the mouth of a motorway slip road, as shown here (link to be added), and Anderson charged me with conducting a U-turn on a motorway because he thought that motorway regulations started at the start of a slip road. They don’t, they start up the slip road at the point where there is a sign that indicates the start of motorway regulations. I didn’t know that at the time, and assumed that Anderson was correct that I had committed the offence, but thought him very heavy handed in issuing a ticket when there was no risk, or even inconvenience, to anybody else.

On ascertaining the truth about where motorway regulations start, I decided to plead not guilty to the charge because I was clearly innocent. In due course, I received Anderson’s and Rimmer’s witness statements for the prosecution saying that I drove further up the slip road – 25 to 30 feet (Anderson) or 10 metres (Rimmer) – and reversed across the road onto the hard shoulder and turned back the wrong way down the slip road. Totally untrue – there wasn’t even a hard shoulder anywhere near there for me to reverse onto. Why did they pick that distance? Almost certainly because on every M6 slip road in Cheshire, the motorway regulations sign is within 25 to 30 feet of the start of the slip road. Except this one, where it is about 115 feet (35 metres) from the start of the slip road! They made a mistake.  So obviously I was not convicted.

I don’t know about you, but I think it is absolutely disgusting that two police constables would submit false statements to make it appear that someone committed an offence they did not commit, even if the constables were too stupid to check the facts and make it stick. So I submitted a complaint to the Cheshire Constabulary. They did not even take the complaint seriously and the investigator, Inspector Richard Hill, was too crooked or too bone idle to talk to me and take my statement and see the evidence that the statements were false. No surprise the complaint was not upheld.

I appealed and my appeal should have been referred to the IPCC (since superseded by the IOPC) because of the gravity of the complaint, but I didn’t know that then. But they are useless anyway as I subsequently discovered. But the head of the so-called Professional Standards department, Superintendent John Armstrong (now retired) dishonestly handled the appeal himself and, even though he knew that there had been no investigation, rejected my appeal without any investigation ever having been conducted. The then chief constable, Simon Byrne (since suspended and now in Northern Ireland), reckons that was OK because, and I quote,  “Inspector Hill considered he had sufficient evidence from your letter of complaint to understand the nature of the allegations you made about the conduct of the officers.  I am satisfied Inspector Hill’s actions in determining the outcome of your complaint were properly reviewed and taken into account by Superintendent Armstrong“.  How dishonest and corrupt can you get?  Under law, the chief constable has the responsibility to appoint an investigator.  We all know the job of an investigator is to investigate, not merely “to understand the nature of the allegations”.  Simon Byrne is not fit to be chief constable if he is so easily satisfied by an “investigation”, report and appeal that includes so many violations of the IPCC (now IOPC) Guidance on handling complaints.  As chief constable, he was responsible for the police complaints process within the constabulary and he failed miserably. (To cap that, he knowingly submitted a false Statement of Defence to my claim for malicious prosecution.)

You see how this crooked cover-up of gross misconduct extends all the way to the top of the Cheshire Constabulary. I feel well justified in referring to them as a crooked organisation. Beware. If there is no integrity at the top, there will be none below. The evidence is that this lack of integrity continues under acting chief constable Janette McCormick and PCC David Keane.

It was so evident that the statements of Anderson and Rimmer were false, and I was so disgusted by the cover-up that I launched a claim for Malicious Prosecution against the chief constable. I did so as a litigant in person, without legal representation. Big mistake. Here are some no win/no fee solicitors you might try if you are in the same situation (links to be added).

Anderson and Rimmer submitted witness statements for the trial – basically the same as their previous statements for my prosecution with a few additional details. Witness statements come with a declaration of truth and are what the witness will say in court. No problem there. I was well prepared to show they were false.

So what went wrong? They lied even more when they testified in court and said that I was much further up the slip road to where there was a hard shoulder (a part of my proof that their original statements were false were that they said I reversed onto the hard shoulder a very long way from where there was a hard shoulder). I was stymied. I am not very good at thinking on my feet and did not know that I could ask for an adjournment while I considered the new testimony, and judge Pearce didn’t bother to tell me and, very strangely and totally out of order, told me that I might have anticipated that they would change their testimony. I don’t understand that either and he didn’t bother to explain when I asked for his comments.  I should have known then that my claim didn’t stand a chance with him as judge. I can easily prove the revised testimony false, but I didn’t come up with convincing proof in court, not that it would have made any difference because judge Richard Pearce ignored evidence and invented new, bogus “evidence” in his judgment anyway.  I can think of no reason for that other than to find an excuse to believe the police testimony and disbelieve mine. Go figure.  I thought judges were supposed to decide impartially on the facts alone, not to ignore evidence and create new “evidence” with apparent partiality.

So I lost my claim and to rub salt into the wound, I had to pay the Cheshire Constabulary costs. Normally when a pensioner gets cheated out of many thousands of pounds there is a public outcry and the police do something. When it is police deception that rips them off, nothing happens.

For avoidance of doubt, PC4226 Anderson and PC1234 Rimmer submitted false witness statements, of which they declared the truth, and gave false testimony under oath in court. The acting chief constable, Janette McCormick, and Police and Crime Commissioner David Keane deem this acceptable and will not investigate or prosecute this alleged crime. In effect they have decided that the Cheshire Constabulary will not uphold the law but will be a criminal organisation.

I did submit a further complaint about Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice, but the Cheshire constabulary refuses to investigate. I wonder why? On the face of it, I would say it is because they would have to admit that they are a crooked organisation and compensate me for the money they “stole”, and they would have to get rid of two crooked cops. Fortunately I no longer live in Cheshire and avoid passing through it when I can. Those of you who live there might like to express your displeasure at being policed by a crooked organisation (reasons for that description stated above).


I have exhausted all legal steps that I am prepared to take in this matter. Constables Anderson and Rimmer will likely evade justice, but at least the world will know what sort of people they are and know that they need to be very cautious in any dealings with them and with the Cheshire Constabulary.

They and others may ask internet search engines not to show this website in search results, but search engines will not do that if a website is accurate and in the public interest, as this one is.

Interesting dilemma for Anderson and Rimmer. If they don’t make a claim against me for defamation, that is like acknowledging that what I have said is true.  If they do make a claim against me, I will show that it is true and that they lied multiple times in their written and verbal testimony. What’s it going to be?

Will they, the Cheshire constabulary or anyone else make a claim against me for defamation? On the one hand they have access to almost unlimited funds; on the other hand, do Anderson and Rimmer want to risk going to court and repeating under oath things that I am now well able to demonstrate are untrue?

They not only have the protection of the Cheshire Constabulary, but also of the Police Federation. The following section is from the Police Federation website concerning the criteria for deploying federation funds:

30.11. in connection with pre-publication advice, proceedings or possible
proceedings for defamation, invasion of privacy, breach of confidence or any similar
type of claim, provided that in relation to any advice, proceedings or potential
proceedings for defamation the statement or alleged statement appears to relate
to the Member’s conduct as a member of a Police Force, or to disparage him/her in
the office of constable or otherwise to cast doubt upon his/her fitness to be a
member of a Police Force;

My defence of course is that what I have said is true, and therefore not defamatory. If a claim is made against me, I am prepared to demonstrate the truth of my statements, even beyond reasonable doubt.


Some time has elapsed since I wrote the foregoing.  I sent a copy to the criminal constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer for comment prior to publication.  They didn’t comment or try to refute what I wrote.  They did contact the force solicitor’s office who requested that I shouldn’t write to them again.  That just goes to show the stupidity of the force solicitor because I sent them a draft first for comment, and received none, which is why I sent to to the criminal cops directly.  The force solicitor’s office has checked out this website and is fully conversant with the content.  They have not requested that I cease and desist or suggested that anything I have written is untrue

You may therefore take the following statements as fact:

  • Criminals Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer perverted the course of justice by submitting false statements and committed perjury.
  • The force solicitor knows that they perverted the course of justice and committed perjury, yet have done nothing about it, contrary to the solicitors’ code of conduct.
  • The Cheshire Constabulary is a criminal organisation that profits from the crime of their members and knowingly harbours criminals without bringing them to justice.

There have been personnel changes in the criminal Cheshire constabulary since I first published this website.  Acting chief constable Janette McCormick has moved on to the college of policing, presumably to train up more criminals, since she was so unconcerned about the criminality of the people for which she was responsible.  Chief constable Darren Martland has since come and gone, again with no concern for the criminality of his constables.  There is a new chief constable and I don’t know whether he is as crooked as his predecessors.  I shall ask.