GILES YORK

  SUSSEX POLICE CHIEF CONSTABLES GILES YORK

 

 

Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>)

 

 

 

Giles York may not be a mason but how many of his officers are?

 

TRAFFIC COP - Speeding is no longer a problem for bobby's on the beat because of the potholes the size of craters that will smash the suspension of any ordinary car. Drivers on British roads now have to zig-zag their way to and from work and hope that their zags so not coincide with the zags of other drivers on a zig stroke - or else their will be an accident. What has happened to all of our road fund license money. Is this another fraud investigation that the police will turn a blind eye to.

 

 

Sussex Police is governed by their Chief Constable, Giles York, since 2014, for which he, like his predecessors earned a Queens Police Medal. It is Mr York's job to put in place an effective administration to be able to police Sussex. In turn he reports to the Crime Commissioner, who is at this point in time (Nov 2018) Katy Bourne, though crime commissioners and their advisory body the Association of PCCs may be coming to a sticky end for multiple failures according to Wikipedia.

 

The public think that the police decide who to target and what the priorities are, when in fact it is local businesses, councils and masons - with a few others thrown into the melting pot - who decide who and what Giles and his henchmen will target. What Mr York does is to take his instructions and push it through the system to make it all look legitimate.

 

The CPS at the end of that chain, are there to push cases that their clients want processed through the courts, and the judges are there to steer trials toward the conclusion that the clients want. Assuming that any fit up is good enough to fool a jury, the hapless victims are then fed through the prison system like meat through a mincemeat grinder and finally released out onto the streets broken men, dancing at the end of a short leash to their puppet masters tune to visit their probation officers and listen to how they have been naughty, when in fact the naughty ones are those who gave to order for the frame up. It is a process of brainwashing.

 

 

 

NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - Evidence of criminal malfeasance in common law is mounting against each chief constable in turn as they refuse to investigate crimes against the person. Historic allegations often take a while before the state acts. It matter not if a crime is 20 or even 30 years in the making, it is in the public interest to make an example of the offenders to ward off other similar crimes taking place in other forces and planning departments across Great Britain. We are sure that Her Majesty and successor Kings would want to clean up British local government.

 

 

DEMONSTRABLE BIAS

 

You may have heard of bias, and you may wonder what that means. Bias is when the police are so intent on finding a person guilty of a crime that they are only looking for evidence that help them gain a conviction. Any evidence that points the other way is ignored and in some cases buried, but is never disclosed. Where bias is evident one can never be sure that the investigating officers did their job. Indeed, we know they did not where they failed to secure key evidence that would have helped the defendant prove his innocence. But first, let us look at the background a little more ....

 

BANKING

 

Giles York appears to be using the banking network in seeking to prevent this target from becoming successful during his working life. To date this includes Barclays, Lloyds and HSBC. It remains to be seen if and how the evidence accumulates to give weight to the institutionalised eugenics programme that Sussex police are involved in with Wealden District Council. Interference in any persons private and family life is illegal, if misfeasance in public office becomes malfeasance carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment from the seriousness of repeated offences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roads are not up to scratch in the Wealden District of East Sussex

 

 

WEALDEN WORKING WITH SUSSEX POLICE - A POTENTIAL ARMED RAID IN THE MAKING 1997

 

Christine Nuttall prepared a report of a site visit in 1997 with her chum David Phillips for Derek Holness alleging assault and mental health issues on the part of a Wealden Action Group political activist who she'd been targeting for years to bury one of Wealden's darkest dirtiest secrets. Derek Holness used Mrs Nuttall's report as an excuse to write to Inspector Tim Mottram asking for police support in respect of suspected firearms at the home of the target, presumably seeking an armed police raid against their victim - as happened in the case of James Ashley around 6 months later in 1998.

 

An armed police raid at the behest of Mr Holness all hinged on their being firearms on the premises and the willingness of Inspector Mottram to be part of a potential shooting incident should he go with the flow. Fortunately for the target, this police officer was not willing to go along with any fit-up in the end and we suspect that another council officer present at the time of the alleged incident was also somewhat reluctant to help fabricate the lie that would trigger authorization to use live ammunition. Instead of blindly acceding to the request of Holness and Nuttall, Inspector Mottram took the trouble to visit the site and spoke with the target who was more than willing to show the very decent officer that all he had on the premises were sporting air rifles for vermin control and that he was quite a stable person despite 185 recorded site visits by the offending council officers.

 

There are though other ways to skin a cat and Wealden working with Sussex Police did not give up that easily, especially as the activist was now threatening citizens arrests at illegal site visits - rather pushing the council into a corner and challenging their authority in such a way that they had become virtually neutered and a Petition also in 1997 put the crooked civil servants on the defensive. What was the council to do. Then is 1998 things got really awkward for Wealden with the Sussex Archaeology Society backing the claims of the activist as to the history of a generating station, that poor old Christine Nuttall had hoped was long buried under the rubble of several High Court injunctions obtained at great expense to the public purse and by deception, even involving perjury on the part of David Phillips and photographs that he had changed the date of.

 

The next thing Wealden tried was to bankrupt the hardy citizen. This led to a counterclaim in the High and County Courts that Trevor Scott would have difficulty defeating, even with an army of QCs at the taxpayer's expense. So, the new chief executive, Daniel Goodwin, offered a deal. The Council offered to sweep the 26,000 pounds in costs they'd talked Dame Butler-Sloss into ordering during the Potty Training appeal under the carpet and put right the planning status of the building that they had been trying for years to acquire for neighbours at an undervalue - to rights.

 

All was well until the handcuffs came out at other council site visits that were illegal and where a citizen's arrest could mean calling in another police force - where Sussex police were aiding and abetting the unlawful site visits. No way could they allow Sussex police to be investigated by another force. They needed some way of burying this adversary from which nobody could return - and a miracle came their way in the form of an engagement that went sour.

 

They used the acrimonious break up of a relationship to the daughter of a former councillor who very conveniently we understand (and it is alleged that he) was also a mason and past master of the Tyrian Lodge in South Street, just around the corner from the police station in Grove Road, Eastbourne, so could be persuaded to help another brother mason fabricate a case of sexual assault and rape. There were at this time there are probably still are a number of masons in Sussex police. The only problem with that being that the the girl who they were fuelling for the part by way of revenge for leaving her mother was still intact and a virgin when they obviously believed otherwise.

 

 

Sussex police failed to carry out virginity test because they knew the girl was intact

 

 

The target though was still convicted with the help of a cooperative Judge who made (possibly deliberate) evidential errors in summing up and an impoverished solicitor and barrister duo who were not prepared to challenge the so-called expert medical evidence that the Crown were saying proved foul play because of the expense of instructing an independent expert. They were not even prepared to call character witnesses for their client, though there were seventeen for the defendant waiting in the wings, nor seek an adjournment to examine late evidence in the form of a diary that nobody knew existed save the girls mother - and she'd kept quiet about that until she was caught out lying on the stand and then mentioned it, but only under duress and only when it was of no actual use to the defence. The CPS made sure of that with no adjournment and only monochrome copies provided of selected pages supplied for resumption of the trial in two days time.

 

The Criminal Case Review Commissioners are, apparently, in on it, refusing to investigate the virginity issue and especially steering clear of the diary evidence because the trial judge misdirected the jury as to where that evidence came from. The last thing they want the public to know is how Gordon Staker and his team of investigators managed to find nothing in support of the defendant, failing to find the work diary, check the claimant's computer or her VHS tapes all of which were episodes of The Bill and Casualty and only those TV programmes. The girl was obsessed with crime and those programmes routinely contained child sex stories, but she claimed she did not know that being abused was wrong. Conversely, Mr Staker raided the defendant's premises grabbing all of his computers and laptops, but failed to report to the jury that there was nothing incriminating on them. Whereas, had he taken the trouble to look at the claimant's machine, he would have found her obsession with wheelchairs and crutches and pictures that she'd taken of her younger brothers genitals. Clearly, the girl they'd groomed for the part was an attention seeker hell bent on revenge against the man who jilted her mother. He'd called off an engagement to be married. We also understand that the girl they were grooming was susceptible to suggestion, changing her story several times as she was coached.

 

Other revelations follow in the same vein, just as astounding when it comes to crafting of the evidence, in breach of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the codes for investigating and recording information that points towards or away from guilt. In this case the prosecution relied on three strands of evidence:

 

1. A doctor from the local hospital was prepared to lie on oath in such a way as to deceive the jury as to mark that are naturally occurring. (They didn't use their expert Elizabeth Carter)

2. A Valentines card was saucy enough to paint a picture that would raise the Jury's suspicions when coupled with the lie about hymenal marks as in 1. above.

3. Social services had coached their star witness into telling a story that was believable, save for the existence of her mother's (a community psychiatric nurse) work diary.

 

These three strands could have been unraveled if his barrister had made an application to question the claimant. Something he refused to make. Barrister Julian Dale also failed to use the diaries of the accused to show the Jury that he'd been asked to send the Valentive cards. All of this was in a paginated evidence bundle the accused had given to Cramp & Co.

 

Concerning the valentines card, we are certain that either Gordon Staker and/or James Hookway and Jo Pinyoun read the desk diaries belonging to the accused. He would have looked at the entries for valentines day and seen reminders that the girl's mother had written in to get the accused to send valentines day cards to herself and her daughter as had become customary in the three year relationship. Why then would Staker not secure these diary entries? For they showed that the accused was simply doing what the Community Psychiatric Nurse had asked him to.

 

It gets worse. Where the police appeared keen to ignore this vital evidence, the defendant supplied this evidence to his solicitor and barrister, Timothy Stirmey and Julian Dale. Yet Julian Dale did not mention the existence of this evidence to the Jury. So allowing them to think the worst, instead of the truth that the accused was only being a good family man, in making the claimant feel cared for, where she had no boyfriend. Once again the Jury were kept in the dark. Why would an experienced barrister withhold such information, knowing it would set the record straight. We think it is for the same reason as his refusal to challenge the medical evidence. He had done a deal. He also failed to mention the fraud of the Community Psychiatric Nurse in claiming benefits when she had a capital sum exceeding 16,000. Don't you think the Jury should have known about these facts. This woman had also driven without a valid MOT and caused a three car pile up, but failed to declare her low blood pressure to her insurers and that her clutch was behaving erratically. She also failed to mention about her medical condition to her employers, as it invalidated her insurance - and of course without a car she could not work as a community psychiatric nurse.

 

Julian Dale had no excuse. He was presented with an evidence bundle totaling some 342 pages, all indexed and paginated with relevant descriptions for ease of reference.

 

Lord Blunkett aided and abetted this stitch-up (and probably many more) by introducing the Sexual Offences Act 2003, an act of Parliament that reversed the burden of proof in these criminal cases, where a defendant stands in a dock guilty as charged and has to prove innocence, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 on the European Convention of Human Rights. These Articles say that anyone accused of a crime must enter a courtroom presumed innocent. David Blunkett really slipped up there Ma'am.

 

Legal Aid funding of the defence did not include an increase in budget to cover the additional workload of lawyers to prove innocence, where the CPS simply had to make the allegation and provide no proof whatsoever that what was claimed actually took place - and that is what they pulled off. The police, CPS and judges are no doubt smiling about this deception but should be ashamed of themselves, where in our opinion they are no better than Nazi war criminals for their part in the scam, akin to gassing the inmates at Auschwitz and Buchenwald during the Holocaust. They might well have beaten a confession from their victim with a little water-boarding throw in and used that to sway the jury. For that is what the police did in the case of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, not Sussex of course, but most forces operate in similar ways.

 

What the UK has at the moment is a Witch-Hunt justice system of Kangaroo courts that violate the basic principles of fair play and an even playing field. Fair play was never a Colonial trait concerning enslaving those is the British Empire, so why stop now. Not many people know that it was the British who perfected concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer Wars under the leadership of Lord Kitchener and that he was knighted for it. What we are looking at is nothing short of a Nazi style eugenics programme on our own doorstep - that the voting public are completely unaware of due to the legal camouflage and easy manipulation of the CPS and English courts where Britain has no written constitution.

 

 

 

 

BACK DOOR - During a raid on premises in Sussex in 2014 police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock on a fifth door. The pictures above show the level of force used to gain entry. They also urinated in toilets and did not flush them and left the premises virtually unsecured. They came in via a back door, smashing wire reinforced glass and a concrete ledge in the process, also tearing the frame liner and destroying the lock. They really must have gone for it with crowbars and the like. Why did the police not call when someone was in, or make an appointment? This door will have to be replaced as will the liner and lock and the sill will have to be repaired.

 

 

 

 

HALL DOOR - During a raid on premises in Sussex police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock on another door. The pictures above shows the level of force used to get through a hall door that they totally ruined, including the lock that was smashed. They really seem to have enjoyed the vandalism. That is another frame, door and lock to repair.

 

 

   

 

ARCHIVE DOOR - During a raid on premises in Sussex police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock on another door. The pictures above shows the level of force used to get through an archive door. They really seem to have brutalized each door in turn. It is a miracle that some of the doors in this building had the keys in the locks. That is another frame, door and lock to repair, with the door split lengthways as was the frame. The lock was jammed solid.

 

 

 

TOILET DOOR - During a raid on premises in Sussex police thugs, including Detective Sergeant Dave Tye, smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock on another door. The pictures above shows the level of force used to get through a toilet door. Why did they need to get into the toilet so badly. That is another frame, door and lock to repair. They used the toilet but did not flush it. These were pictures taken just after the incident in 2014.

 

 

 

ANNEX DOOR - During a raid on premises in Sussex police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock on another door. The pictures above shows the padlock hasp cracked in two places. That is another lock to replace and the toilet in this unit was used and not flushed. Teenage hooligans might have at least flushed the toilet. It was the police who did this not a gang of burglars. The Sussex police offered no apology and no compensation for their error. Of course this damage was not occasioned in error. It is alleged that this violence was all part of a calculated campaign of terror to bully the occupant. Given this kind of behaviour it is hardly surprising that in television series the villains call the police: pigs or filth. How would you describe anyone who did this to your home for no good reason other than to intimidate you?

 

 

TRADEMARK WAR RAID - INSTITUTIONALISED DISCRIMINATION

 

Having gained a conviction the agencies try their best to keep control of their victims by gaining another conviction. Where the sex conviction was so successfully obtained Sussex police were enlisted to obtain another. All they needed was a reason to have a go and this presented itself in the form of a former partner who might easily be persuaded to make a complaint.

 

Sussex police knew the layout of their targets home inside and out from intelligence supplied by Wealden District Council from their 186 raids, the last being in 2017. Strangely the target had complained to the police about the fraudulent use of a trade mark by the grandson of a land speed record legend. The police took no action to interview the suspect or gather information from his home or business premises.

 

Conversely, when the suspect in the same matter made a complaint about their target, they smashed down five doors in a raid and confiscated huge bags of files, also preventing contact between parties as a condition of bail. Several months later some of the files were returned with no apology for the five smashed doors and frames. The problem with this raid is that the evidence they were after had already been supplied by the target in making the allegation of fraudulent use by his former land speed record partner. You can see from the pictures above that the Sussex police relished the chance to bash down the doors and really do some damage - even though they'd already been supplied with a copy of the key document, a Deed of Covenant that the former partner had not only signed but also sent in an envelope by special delivery written in his own hand. There could be no doubt whatsoever that this was a real document and not a forgery as was being alleged. Why then the raid?

 

You can probably see a pattern from these events, but there was one more attempt to have another go at the target involving more of the case crafting technique used in the sex case ....... Before we go into that it may help you to know that repeated attacks on the same person by the Metropolitan police resulted in a conviction of that force on a charge of institutionalised discrimination

 

Discrimination is unlawful after Article 14 of the European Convention. Repeated attacks take misfeasance in public office to the next level, making a civil wrong a criminal offence of malfeasance. You can though see a pattern of repeated attacks, with Sussex police supporting Wealden District Council on many of the 186 recorded site visits that were authorised on the basis of a fraudulently obtained enforcement notice dating from 1986 when Wealden's officers lied to Inspector Raymond Dannruether. Does that ring a bell? Is that not the same as Chris Sherwood shooting James Ashley based on authorization for firearms based on fabricated intelligence.

 

Sussex police cannot deny that they knew about Wealden's fraud past the year 1999. The problem is that they did know because they were formally put on notice of it by recorded delivery. We suspect that they knew well before that, however, from 1999 the police continued to support Wealden and did nothing to prosecute any of Wealden's officers for their organised frauds by way of conspiracy so perpetuating the crime that Christine Nuttall had done her best to disguise, but when the opportunity arose to have another go at their target, they went ahead and did so ignoring the ongoing use of a fraudulent document by their friends at Wealden, constituting a conspiracy to corrupt, contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Criminal Law Act 1977, conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public Office, contrary to Common Law and the Criminal Law Act 1977 and misconduct in a public office, contrary to Common Law.

 

Who then is going to prosecute Giles York and his predecessors: Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>) and who is going to pick up the baby once this investigation begins ?

 

 

Council offices in Hailsham and leisure centre

 

COUNCIL OFFICES - It's easy for a council to generate income from granting themselves planning consent on one site and then selling off another when it becomes prime real estate. These are the recently developed offices at Hailsham, it has to be said; almost totally devoid of climate change offset features. Wealden sold off their offices in Crowborough much to the annoyance of local residents. 

 

 

 

 

 

SUSSEX POLICE A - Z OF OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS

 

Adrian Wain

Aran Boyt

Chris Sherwood

Colin Dowle

Dave Tye

Jane Rhodes

Jo Pinyoun

Joe Edwards

Giles York

Gordon Staker

James Hookway

Jeremy Paine

Kara Tombling

Keith Lindsay

Keith Stoneman

Ken Jones

Maria Wallis

Mark Jordan

Martin Richards

Neil Honnor

Nigel Yeo

Olivia Pinkney

Paul Whitehouse

Peter Coll

Robert Lovell

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC

Timothy Motram

LINKS

 

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9859429.Sussex_police_officer_and_journalist_arrested_in_corruption_probe

 

 

 

AFFORDABLE | CLIMATE | DEVELOPERS | ECONOMY | FLOOD | HISTORY | HOMES

LADDER | MORALSPOVERTY | PROPERTY | SLAVERY | TAXES | SLUMS | VALUATIONS | WEALTH

 

BUSHYWOOD A - Z INDEX

 

 

Pothole Politics