Brian Pead meets Driscoll of the Yard
MINUTES OF MEETING
Date: 09 March 2015
Venue: The Port Jackson public house, Bishop’s Stortford, Essex
Attendees: retired Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll [CD],
Michael Bird [MB] (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth),
William Brian Freeman [WBF] (formerly known as Brian Pead) (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth) and other books including FRAMED! and 10Prisons12Weeks
1. CD opened the meeting by declaring that he had called it in order to “seek justice for Brian and his family”;
2. CD added that Lambeth Council was known to be a ‘corrupt Borough’ and that a common consensus was that “everyone was on the fiddle”;
3. The consequence of [2] was that people who came to learn about child abuse perpetrated by others would not expose it for fear of themselves being exposed for wrongdoing such as, for example, financial mismanagement;
4. CD added that there was a strong Catholic and Masonic presence in Lambeth and within the Police;
5. WBF informed CD that the female teacher he dismissed for grooming and other offences had been a teacher at St Augustine’s Catholic School in Ealing and that the Executive Director of Lambeth’s Children and Young People’s Service is a Governor at La Retraite Catholic School in Lambeth;
6. CD commented that “Lambeth have been vicious to you, Brian, and it can’t be just because of what you wrote in the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth”;
7. CD stated that he read the book and agreed with its contents;
8. CD stated that WBF was “…flagged up at Scotland Yard as being a major threat because of your research and books…” and that WBF had been “…subjected to a sustained period of persecution by the Met as a direct consequence of this…”;
9. CD suggested that WBF write to his MP seeking justice, to enquire whether he is on the Sex Offenders’ Register (since people are sometimes added to it in error), if he is on it, why he is on it and for what period of time;
10. CD said that he would try to obtain a transcript of the entire Southwark trial;
11. CD stated that a major difficulty with quashing the Southwark (2009) conviction for alleged incitement was that WBF had “out-stung” a police sting operation and that if Brian’s conviction had been quashed it might have led to hundreds (if not thousands) of other convictions being quashed at great cost to the Government in terms of (a) compensation and (b) a large number of unsafe convictions;
12. WBF stated – and this was confirmed by MB – that it was an injustice to him and his family that his conviction “might not yet be quashed” simply because of other cases. WBF stated that he was not interested in other cases, only his own;
13. CD added that the case of alleged incitement of a non-existent girl (Southwark, 2009) could and should be quashed because of misdirections from the judge, his placing the jury under duress to reach a decision on the last day of the Michaelmas Term and mis-Joinder;
14. WBF added that there were a number of significant abuses of process in the Southwark conviction which could ordinarily lead to his conviction being quashed and not necessarily convictions of others whose circumstances could be very different from his own;
15. WBF informed CD that he (WBF) had two (2) police national computer (PNC) records, and this was confirmed by MB;
16. CD stated that it was not ordinarily possible for anybody to have two such records and that one must clearly be false;
17. MB confirmed that at Southend Police station in January 2013, a civilian administrator also stated that the record he had called up on the PNC appeared to be false;
18. WBF stated that this record contained at least six (6) convictions for rapes and other sexual assaults against females under 13 and that none of them was true;
19. CD stated that they could not have been true because otherwise Brian would not be at liberty;
20. CD stated that this false record needed to be expunged – he suggested that WBF write to the Commissioner of the Met, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and inform him that WBF has never been arrested, charged, indicted for these offences, that it was dishonest of someone to create a second PNC record showing false data, that there has been a lot of corruption in WBF’s cases and also conspiracy and “…huge breaches of you and your family’s human rights…”;
21. WBF stated that he would do this within the next week or two [Editor’s Note: this was not possible since Brian was committed to prison and had no written records with him];
22. CD suggested that WBF obtain the MAPPA file against him because (a) he is entitled to it and (b) it is likely to throw up information that would prove mistakes had been made on the part of the Police and/or Lambeth Council;
23. CD suggested that Brian write to the Department of Professional Standards, Empress State Building, London;
24. WBF stated that he knew of two rogue officers within that building and was therefore loathe to have their own colleagues investigate them as such investigations usually resulted in a whitewash;
25. CD stated that it was appalling the effect that these cases were not only having on WBF but also his daughter and grandchildren and that, as a grandfather himself, he could not imagine the distress this was causing both to WBF and his family members;
26. WBF mentioned that his son-in-law owned a garage repairing vehicles for the Met Police and that the police could well have taken advantage of this business relationship to turn Brian’s family against him and feed them false information;
27. CD added that it was likely they have been misinformed and shown false documents against WBF which had led them to no longer have contact;
28. CD added that there was “…undoubtedly an element of dishonesty…” somewhere in all of these cases, stating that had Brian been guilty of the alleged improper activity online, then he (CD) would not have prosecuted but – at most – written a warning letter about conduct. CD said that he could not understand why the case ever went to court at Southwark in 2009;
29. CD added that in his opinion WBF ought to write to his MP about numerous breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and that people in various agencies of State were clearly making decisions based on false PNC records and other data;
30. WBF informed CD about his and his brothers’ abuse in a children’s home in Harpenden, Hertfordshire known as ‘The Oval’ from 1955 to 1960 and CD suggested that WBF write to the MP for Harpenden [Editor’s Note: due to his incarceration without recourse to his records, this was not achieved until 08 April 2016];
31. CD asked what level of compensation that WBF would ultimately be seeking – WBF stated that he had initiated a claim against Lambeth in 2013 for £5million;
32. CD suggested that this might be “selling yourself short considering everything that Lambeth have done to you over almost a decade”;
33. A figure of £30 million was suggested to include claims against Lambeth Council, three police forces, Off Centre counselling charity and other organisations and individuals;
34. WBF invited CD to write a chapter for a second edition of the book From Hillsborough to Lambeth but CD stated that he would be unable to do so given that there are on-going investigations into child abuse in Lambeth Council;
35. WBF informed CD that he was writing a new book about the Tony Martin case in 1999 and invited CD to write a chapter about that case – CD stated that he would be pleased to since “…murder is my speciality…”;
36. CD stated that he believed that Michael Mansfield would be “…an ideal barrister…” to assist Brian in quashing his convictions, restoring his good name and receiving compensation;
37. MB agreed that this would be a good choice of barrister;
38. WBF stated that he would be willing to work with Mr Mansfield;
39. CD stated that he would approach Mr Mansfield on WBF’s behalf [Editor’s Note: this has not yet been achieved];
40. CD provided a business card to MB and WBF – this card included CD’s home address and mobile telephone number.
41. END OF MINUTES ………………………………………………………………
Date: 09 March 2015
Venue: The Port Jackson public house, Bishop’s Stortford, Essex
Attendees: retired Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll [CD],
Michael Bird [MB] (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth),
William Brian Freeman [WBF] (formerly known as Brian Pead) (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth) and other books including FRAMED! and 10Prisons12Weeks
1. CD opened the meeting by declaring that he had called it in order to “seek justice for Brian and his family”;
2. CD added that Lambeth Council was known to be a ‘corrupt Borough’ and that a common consensus was that “everyone was on the fiddle”;
3. The consequence of [2] was that people who came to learn about child abuse perpetrated by others would not expose it for fear of themselves being exposed for wrongdoing such as, for example, financial mismanagement;
4. CD added that there was a strong Catholic and Masonic presence in Lambeth and within the Police;
5. WBF informed CD that the female teacher he dismissed for grooming and other offences had been a teacher at St Augustine’s Catholic School in Ealing and that the Executive Director of Lambeth’s Children and Young People’s Service is a Governor at La Retraite Catholic School in Lambeth;
6. CD commented that “Lambeth have been vicious to you, Brian, and it can’t be just because of what you wrote in the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth”;
7. CD stated that he read the book and agreed with its contents;
8. CD stated that WBF was “…flagged up at Scotland Yard as being a major threat because of your research and books…” and that WBF had been “…subjected to a sustained period of persecution by the Met as a direct consequence of this…”;
9. CD suggested that WBF write to his MP seeking justice, to enquire whether he is on the Sex Offenders’ Register (since people are sometimes added to it in error), if he is on it, why he is on it and for what period of time;
10. CD said that he would try to obtain a transcript of the entire Southwark trial;
11. CD stated that a major difficulty with quashing the Southwark (2009) conviction for alleged incitement was that WBF had “out-stung” a police sting operation and that if Brian’s conviction had been quashed it might have led to hundreds (if not thousands) of other convictions being quashed at great cost to the Government in terms of (a) compensation and (b) a large number of unsafe convictions;
12. WBF stated – and this was confirmed by MB – that it was an injustice to him and his family that his conviction “might not yet be quashed” simply because of other cases. WBF stated that he was not interested in other cases, only his own;
13. CD added that the case of alleged incitement of a non-existent girl (Southwark, 2009) could and should be quashed because of misdirections from the judge, his placing the jury under duress to reach a decision on the last day of the Michaelmas Term and mis-Joinder;
14. WBF added that there were a number of significant abuses of process in the Southwark conviction which could ordinarily lead to his conviction being quashed and not necessarily convictions of others whose circumstances could be very different from his own;
15. WBF informed CD that he (WBF) had two (2) police national computer (PNC) records, and this was confirmed by MB;
16. CD stated that it was not ordinarily possible for anybody to have two such records and that one must clearly be false;
17. MB confirmed that at Southend Police station in January 2013, a civilian administrator also stated that the record he had called up on the PNC appeared to be false;
18. WBF stated that this record contained at least six (6) convictions for rapes and other sexual assaults against females under 13 and that none of them was true;
19. CD stated that they could not have been true because otherwise Brian would not be at liberty;
20. CD stated that this false record needed to be expunged – he suggested that WBF write to the Commissioner of the Met, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and inform him that WBF has never been arrested, charged, indicted for these offences, that it was dishonest of someone to create a second PNC record showing false data, that there has been a lot of corruption in WBF’s cases and also conspiracy and “…huge breaches of you and your family’s human rights…”;
21. WBF stated that he would do this within the next week or two [Editor’s Note: this was not possible since Brian was committed to prison and had no written records with him];
22. CD suggested that WBF obtain the MAPPA file against him because (a) he is entitled to it and (b) it is likely to throw up information that would prove mistakes had been made on the part of the Police and/or Lambeth Council;
23. CD suggested that Brian write to the Department of Professional Standards, Empress State Building, London;
24. WBF stated that he knew of two rogue officers within that building and was therefore loathe to have their own colleagues investigate them as such investigations usually resulted in a whitewash;
25. CD stated that it was appalling the effect that these cases were not only having on WBF but also his daughter and grandchildren and that, as a grandfather himself, he could not imagine the distress this was causing both to WBF and his family members;
26. WBF mentioned that his son-in-law owned a garage repairing vehicles for the Met Police and that the police could well have taken advantage of this business relationship to turn Brian’s family against him and feed them false information;
27. CD added that it was likely they have been misinformed and shown false documents against WBF which had led them to no longer have contact;
28. CD added that there was “…undoubtedly an element of dishonesty…” somewhere in all of these cases, stating that had Brian been guilty of the alleged improper activity online, then he (CD) would not have prosecuted but – at most – written a warning letter about conduct. CD said that he could not understand why the case ever went to court at Southwark in 2009;
29. CD added that in his opinion WBF ought to write to his MP about numerous breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and that people in various agencies of State were clearly making decisions based on false PNC records and other data;
30. WBF informed CD about his and his brothers’ abuse in a children’s home in Harpenden, Hertfordshire known as ‘The Oval’ from 1955 to 1960 and CD suggested that WBF write to the MP for Harpenden [Editor’s Note: due to his incarceration without recourse to his records, this was not achieved until 08 April 2016];
31. CD asked what level of compensation that WBF would ultimately be seeking – WBF stated that he had initiated a claim against Lambeth in 2013 for £5million;
32. CD suggested that this might be “selling yourself short considering everything that Lambeth have done to you over almost a decade”;
33. A figure of £30 million was suggested to include claims against Lambeth Council, three police forces, Off Centre counselling charity and other organisations and individuals;
34. WBF invited CD to write a chapter for a second edition of the book From Hillsborough to Lambeth but CD stated that he would be unable to do so given that there are on-going investigations into child abuse in Lambeth Council;
35. WBF informed CD that he was writing a new book about the Tony Martin case in 1999 and invited CD to write a chapter about that case – CD stated that he would be pleased to since “…murder is my speciality…”;
36. CD stated that he believed that Michael Mansfield would be “…an ideal barrister…” to assist Brian in quashing his convictions, restoring his good name and receiving compensation;
37. MB agreed that this would be a good choice of barrister;
38. WBF stated that he would be willing to work with Mr Mansfield;
39. CD stated that he would approach Mr Mansfield on WBF’s behalf [Editor’s Note: this has not yet been achieved];
40. CD provided a business card to MB and WBF – this card included CD’s home address and mobile telephone number.
41. END OF MINUTES ………………………………………………………………
No comments:
Post a Comment