Police Crime Analogy

August 8, 2019

I was just looking at a video of Tyler Hamilton speaking at the Oxford Union about how, as a top level cyclist, he got into doping, was suspended and ultimately made full statements about his doping and doping in the sport when testifying to a grand jury. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM7mdreB-Yc

What was interesting was how one little pill, when he was feeling really exhausted and drained, led to more, justified on the basis that everybody was doing it and you couldn’t compete without it. Once he had crossed the line, he felt there was no going back. So although he knew it was wrong, he carried on.

It occurred to me that PC Eoin Anderson’s descent into criminality was really a similar story. One step at a time until he became a full-blown criminal. We don’t know when he crossed the line, but certainly when or before he lied in his defence when he was prosecuted for a driving offence. He was convicted of the driving offence, but not of perjury – after all everybody expects people to lie in their defence don’t they?

Then, when he mistakenly charged me with committing an offence that I didn’t commit, it was a small step to falsify his account of the incident to make it appear that charging me was justified. He did that in collusion with PC Nicola Rimmer, but I don’t know whether she was the instigator or he was. She certainly knew that I had not committed the offence, so one of them suggested falsifying their description rather than have Eoin Anderson admit his mistake and put it right.

Then they both submitted false statements for my prosecution, crossing the line from dishonesty into criminality. The case never went to trial, so their criminality was not exposed at that point.

When I sued the crooked chief constable, Simon Byrne, for malicious prosecution, they testified and because of the evident untruth of their previous statements, including their witness statements, it was only a small step to lie again and say that they made a mistake in their statements and in reality I did something else, which was even more of a lie. Blatant perjury and a step into complete and utter criminality on the part of Andefson and Rimmer. They committed an offence in open court for all to see.

But for the crooked judge Richard William Pearce, they wouldn’t have got away with it. I refer to Pearce as crooked because he is not a stupid man. Stupidity would be an excuse for ignoring and not comprehending the evidence, but to make up evidence is a deliberate act and can only be the result of corruption or prejudice – it is not the act of an honest man, and it is an absolute disgrace for a judge.

So Anderson and Rimmer are criminals. What is so deplorable is that the criminal and dishonest culture within the Cheshire constabulary is such that they cover up for criminals like Anderson and Rimmer who have never had their initial dishonesty and subsequent criminality investigated. This is just like the culture of doping that was in cycling. Everybody knew about it, most people did it, but nobody said anything. Fortunately it came to a stop and the whole can of worms was opened. At the Cheshire constabulary it still continues. They all know about their criminality and dishonesty, but nobody, right up to the chief constable, protector of criminals, Darren Martland, is prepared to do anything about it. Even the legal department colludes in the cover up, with submitting to the court documents which they knew not to be true and not doing anything to rectify the wrong. People just lie and cheat and commit crimes to keep their jobs and not rock the boat for fear that it will hurt their careers or their livelihood.

When chief crook Darren Martland took over, I really thought he might want to clean house and lead an organisation where personal integrity and organisational integrity counted for something. Not so. He is a clear defender of the status quo. Deny, sweep under the carpet, pretend that everything is alright, pretend that the police uphold the law instead of breaking it.

What is depressing is that the IOPC has supported them in this. I shall soon publish their response for not looking into the crime of PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer. They clearly committed the crime of perjury, as I can prove, and as further evidenced by the fact that they have not even had a lawyer try to suppress my allegations on this website. The fact that they have not done that and the fact that they have made no murmurings about suing me for defamation are strong indicators that what I have said is true. I know and they know that they do not want to go to court because of the high risk associated with repeating their lies, or admitting them, under oath. And if any other member of the constabulary wants to take me to court over this issue, Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer will be called as witnesses.

I shall further analyse the performance of the IOPC as time permits. It is incomprehensible to me that they can refuse to investigate a complaint of perjury on the basis that it is repetition of a previous complaint about dishonesty when the lies told in both cases were completely different and well over a year had elapsed between the two incidents, and when the initial complaint of dishonesty was rejected without investigation. I think that either their location in Cheshire leads to an improper relationship with the Cheshire police, or they will do anything for an easy life and only bother to deal with cases that might get a high media profile. They don’t bother in my case because it is not high profile. There is of course the supposed remedy of a judicial inquiry, but that costs time and money and a bad decision can still be upheld provided they can demonstrate, truthfully or not, that they followed the correct procedure in arriving at the decision.

Previous post:

Next post: