Monday, 16 September 2013

Brian Pead arrested by Armed Police

Dear Recipient,

I am a friend of Brian's and I'd like to update you about his circumstances.

He has left his flat in Southend and moved to a secret location in Norfolk where he is being looked after by friends who have seen through the miscarriages of justice that he has been involved in after uncovering child abuse in Lambeth and police corruption.

On 16 July 2013 he appeared at the High Court where Lambeth Council attempted to obtain a PERMANENT gagging order on him to prevent him writing or speaking about his time at Lambeth for the rest of his life! The Order was, naturally, unsuccessful.

His 10th book FROM HILLSBOROUGH TO LAMBETH is still currently the subject of a gagging order.

His website www.allaroundjustice.com has been unlawfully removed by the authorities in yet another example of a cover-up.

The website http://lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com (hosted in Slovakia through a friend of Brian's) was also unlawfully removed by the authorities, despite the website being outside of the jurisdiction of England & Wales.

Brian's unlawful trial at Southwark in December 2009 is the subject of a new book FRAMED! and is available now.

On 1 August 2013, Brian was unlawfully arrested by ARMED POLICE at a friend's farm. He was handcuffed too tightly and I took pictures of the severe damage to his wrists. Despite informing the police that he had two broken ribs (still haling slowly), they continued to force his hands and arms behind his back, causing great pain and committing common assault.

He was dragged from his cell at approx. 4.30AM and forced to answer a charge of criminal damage to a car. (He had not of course perpetrated any such damage ... I am a witness to this fact.)

Whilst under police interview, other officers went to the farm where he was staying and unlawfully removed his AppleMac computer and legal papers. The computer was not placed in an evidence bag and there is no chain of custody for it. The police had no Search Warrant to enter the property. It appears that the whole reason the police wanted to arrest Brian on 1 August 2013 at my farm was to unlawfully seize his computer to see what information he had on there about their illegal activities. The information, of course, is held in secret locations around the UK and Europe. This is the second time the police have unlawfully seized a computer related to Brian.

On 13 September 2013, Brian attended King's Lynn Magistrates' Court for directions in the criminal damage case. Whilst in Court, the Crown Prosecution Service then charged him with THREATENING BEHAVIOUR on 1 August 2013 (no such behaviour was displayed by Brian on that or any other day and I am, again, a witness), so he walked into Court with ONE charge and left with TWO charges!

Most people who know the TRUE story about Brian (as opposed to the disinformation spread by the police and judiciary) will know that he has been the target of severe persecution by the state since he uncovered child abuse in Lambeth and on a social networking website and that the authorities try to spread rumours that he is a sex offender. He is not, of course, but it's one way in which the police try to turn people against their target.

We will be writing to you again shortly and asking you to write to your MP about this severe persecution of an innocent man. We believe that it is EVERYBODY'S responsibility to get the legal system and police force we deserve rather than the corrupt system which operates currently. Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Brian's MP in Southend (James Duddridge for the record) wrote to him and said, "Do not correspond with me again" after Brian sent him incontrovertible evidence of police corruption. UNITED WE STAND ... divided, they win.

Which would you prefer?

Kind regards
Richard Fulcher
01485 601 516




Thursday, 5 September 2013

GUNFIGHT AT RAMBLEWOOD FARM

oN tHURSDAY 1st August 2013, armed police showed up at Rambledwood Farm in darkest, deepest Norfolk to arrest campaigner and respected author, Brian Pead.

His alleged crime this time? Criminal Damage! They're hasving a laugh! The bloke is known to like to BUILD or CREATE things, not destory them!

The bloke's a legend. Even Dave Courtney said so when they shared a cell in Belmarsh Prison. (For those who don't know, Dave Courtney is the bloke who arranged the Krays' funeral, has starred in films and known to be a real "geezer".) Brian and Dave got on a like a house on fire, and since they both hate the authorities, they had a lot in common.

Anyway, Brian was arrested on 1 August and taken to the Police Investigation Centre in Saddlebow, near King's lynn, Norfolk.

What a sight for sore eyes that is, apparently.

Anyway, they drag Brian out of his bed at 4.30am and show him photographs of the criminal damage he's suposed to have done. What a load of idiots! The series of photos proved NOTHING!

Brian gave a full no comment interview. Then the boys in blue ARRESTED HIM WHILE HE WAS ALREADY UNDER ARREST (they get off on a power trip, I'm sure of it - imagine being married to a bloody copper (no thanks!) -

His alleged crime? They claim he is a sex offender and they claim he breached an order to tell them of his address!

Muppets (to use a Courtney-ism)!

Then they claimed he "impeded a police officer in the execution of his duty" by giving a false name!

YOU HAVE TO LAUGH AT THE EXTRME LENGTHS THEY WILL GO TO TO BLACKEN HIS NAME AND THAT MUPPET DAUGHTER OF HIS BELIEVES THEM!

Oh, wait a minute! She's married to a bloke who mends cars for the ... wait for it .... MET POLICE!

Oh, Brian's not been fitted up then by any chance?

And a girl called JENNY START from Sidcup (apparently a bit of a rapper - or some similar word) once called brian and said to him "I wouldn't let you in a million miles of kids!"

What does she know? Not a lot ... and they tell me she went to a GRAMMAR SCHool in Sidcup! Don't they teach them anything these days.

JENNYSTART is allegedly a friend of SORREL PEAD, now SORREL BIRCH.

What planet do they live on, cuase it's not planet reality!

Anyways, King's Lynn Magistrates Court on 13 September 2013. Be there to witness the ongoing farce!

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK BRIAN PEAD - EXPOSE THE BASTARDS!

CAROLINE ADDY SEEKS PERMANENT GAGGING ORDER ON BRIAN PEAD

I've been following the case of Brian Pead very closely.

This ALLEGED sex offender (never a victim in his case!) went to the High Court in the Strand. I was in the public gallery watching the farce of all farces!

With NO witnesses, NO victim, NO evidence ... he was sent to Pentonville Prison for two weeks. I spoke with him before the case and he said it's gonna be in his next book. I can't wait, because I love his true life crime books.

Then when he came out, Lambeth Council who unlawfully sacked him, tried to bill him for £24,000 for sending him to prison! They simply shift the blame and take the piss! I heard on the grapevine that Lord Denning helped Brian out!

Then Brian was back at the High Court on 16 July 2013. Guess what? CAROLINE ADDY, supposedly a human rights lawyer, ASKED FOR A PERMENENT GAGGING ORDER on Brian ... yet in the same breath she's claiming that Brian and Michael's book FROM HILLSBOROUGH TO LAMBETH was "an attempt to re-write history". If it was such a crap book, why would they ban that PLUS the <www.allaroundjustice>website and the <http://lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com> websites?

BRIAN PEAD IS A DANGER.... NOT to children, but to THE SO-CALLED AUTHORITIES.

So, they've sent Brian to jail TWICE for no reason ... the first time was the alleged WITNESS INTIMIDATION of his grand-daughter EMILY BIRCH who has never been a witness in a trial of any sort!

In Belmarsh Prison, he shared a cell with DAVE COURTNEY - the celebrity gangster. The two men shared a passion to speak out against injustice. The corrupt judges who jailed Brian will be outed in his next book, as well as the bent barristers he's met since they decided he was a danger to kids at the age of 55 after a quarter of a century in teaching with no problems. And THEY only decided he was a danger to kids AFTER he exposed child abuse and corruption in Lambeth on a MASSIVE scale! As for the police corruption he uncovered ... you would be here a lifetime if I shared all THAT with you. All I will say, is look at the HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER website to read about police corruption on AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE. Bastards!

Many people email me and ask baout Brian's daughter. Sorrel Pead, now Sorrel Birch. I've done some research and Geoffrey Bacon (a friend of Brian's who I've also met) told me she was a "spoilt child who could'nt see the truth if it slapped her round the face!"

I guess that sums it all up! Obviously not the kinda daughter a guy can rely on. Her loss!






Sunday, 24 March 2013

Threat to ALL Whisleblowers

THREAT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH and ALL WHISTLEBLOWERS
Time: March 27, 2013from 10am to 4:30pm
Location: ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, THE STRAND, LONDON
Street: THE STRAND
City/Town: LONDON
Website or Map: http://lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com
Phone: 0756 400 2493
Event Type: high,court,action,threatening,free,speech
Brian is being threatened with Contempt of Court for allegedly refusing to comply with a Court Order banning the sale of his book FROM HILLSBOROUGH TO LAMBETH which exposes child abuse, racism and corruption within Lambeth Council, where he was a Head Teacher.
Please help fill the Public Gallery. If you are unable to make the whole session, come for part of it. Please call the above number for the precise time. Thank you.
Brian Pead Persecuted because he exposed child abuse

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Banned book going viral !

BANNED BOOK VIDEO CRASHES THROUGH THE 1,000 UNIQUE VIEWS BARRIER!


Thursday 21 March 2013

The video by EddytheCat7 Productions about the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth (corruption and cover-up of child abuse and racism in Lambeth Council) has just achieved 1,000 unique views on YouTube.

The 9-minute video is now being viewed on both sides of the Atlantic, where Free Speech is a constitutionally-guarded right, and various countries in Europe.

The video highlights the TWO “Gagging Orders” issued against the book on 30 January 2013 at the Royal Courts of Justice by Judge Tugendhat (Court 14).

It also tells the compelling story of why Lambeth Council wrongfully dismissed a successful Head teacher, Brian Pead, and reinstated an unqualified South African female supply teacher (who had not been CRB checked by Lambeth HR) whom Pead had dismissed for grooming female pupils and racism towards black male pupils.

We contacted Brian Pead who said,

"...I am delighted that the video has come to the attention of a thousand people, but this is not about me. Nor is it about the book. This issue is about Justice. It is about exposing corruption and wrongdoing. It is about the 'little person' standing up to the full panoply of what the State can throw at an innocent person it deems to be a threat.

Some people are writing to me and calling me a 'hero'. I am not a hero. I am just doing what any person, I believe, would do in my situation when you have had your reputation impugned unfairly, when you have lost contact with your beloved grand-children and when the State has bullied you for 6 years.

MY heroes are people like the Pankhurst sisters who went to jail for their basic human rights, Nelson Mandela who was also unlawfully and wrongfully imprisoned by a corrupt and racist Government, Christine Collins who was not only unlawfully imprisoned but declared 'mad' by a corrupt Los Angeles Police Chief and also Doreen Lawrence who has not only received the book, but who has fought tirelessly to expose corruption. These are MY heroes and heroines.

I wish to thank all the people who are watching the video and sharing it in the name of Justice. I wish to thank co-author Michael Bird. I also wish to thank the team at EddytheCat7 Productions..."

In the interests of Free Speech, Justice and Exposing Corruption, please SHARE THIS VIDEO and help to make it go viral.

© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverUp.com 2013 All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

UK Police compared with the Stasi

UK police likened to the Stasi in its treatment of Brian Pead

On the Justice Denied blog, this comment was posted today:

news19 March 2013 08:56
[...] The targeting by the Police of this Grandfather is reminiscent of the Stasi.
And sadder still this is not an isolated case the Police, the Prosecution service and the Judiciary particularly target decent people who want to expose child abuse! Why is that? There can be only one answer !

Will keep you updated on Brian Pead a brave and good man.

By an odd quirk of fate, Brian Pead was in Berlin at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The Stasi
"...The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "corrosion" or "undermining".

By the 1970s, the Stasi had decided that methods of overt persecution which had been employed up to that time, such as arrest and torture, were too crude and obvious. It was realised that psychological harassment was far less likely to be recognised for what it was, so its victims, and their supporters, were less likely to be provoked into active resistance, given that they would often not be aware of the source of their problems, or even its exact nature. Zersetzung was designed to side-track and "switch off" perceived enemies so that they would lose the will to continue any "inappropriate" activities.

Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim’s private or family life. This often included breaking into homes and messing with the contents – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included smear campaigns, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually victims had no idea the Stasi were responsible. Many thought they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.

One great advantage of the harassment perpetrated under Zersetzung was that its subtle nature meant that it was able to be denied. That was important given that the German Democratic Republic was trying to improve its international standing during the 1970s and 80s..."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
© Wikipedia  All Rights Reserved

http://www.stasimuseum.de/en/engeschichte.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/communism-in-east-germany/10107.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverUp.com 2013 All Rights Reserved

Monday, 18 March 2013

Brian Pead arrested - AGAIN!

Unlawful arrest of Brian Pead
Friday, 15 March 2013.
Southend Police Station, Essex
Time: 20:35
Arresting Officer: APS Harper [71035]
Reason for Arrest: Failing to Provide Essex Police with Contact Details


On his dead brother’s 62nd birthday, Brian Pead was arrested [15th March]. He spent the night in the cells on his late father’s birthday [16th March], so his detention came at a critical period on Brian’s calendar and spanned the birthdays of two important people in his life.

At 8pm, Brian attended Southend Police Station with Michael Bird, co-author of from Hillsborough to Lambeth, a book exposing child abuse, racism and corruption at Lambeth Council.

They had gone to report trespass, harassment and assault by two officers from Essex Police on Brian’s 75yr-old female neighbour. The Police had called on her, but she told them to go away. Instead, they pushed past her and unlawfully trespassed on her property. She was reduced to tears.

This is not the first time Essex Police have done this, either.

So, the two men went to Southend Police Station to report these crimes against an innocent, law-abiding neighbour. They were prepared to make statements, jointly and severally.

After a 20-minute wait, they were ushered into a room off the main foyer. As they stepped inside the room, believing they were going to make a statement, the door was locked behind them.

A police officer said he was going to arrest Brian for failing to notify the Police of his address on 11 January 2013. Michael Bird said, “You can’t arrest him. He is innocent of the crime you allege. I am prepared to make a statement to that effect. You must let him go.”

As a registered sex offender (he isn’t but they love to claim he is as they play their game of Disinformation), he is obliged to inform his local police station of his whereabouts.

On two occasions in January both Michael and Brian went to Southend Police Station and Brian provided his details. As he always does, he got a time and date-stamped receipt for his visit.

On 10 January 2013, they sent a letter (and a copy of their book to Mr Jim Barker-McCardle, the Chief Constable of Essex. The letter had Brian’s address on it … so the Police DID have his address within the required date. And not just any old police, but the Chief Constable, no less!)

Acting Police Sergeant Harper insisted on arresting Brian (at 20:35). Mr Pead told APS Harper that he had no right to arrest him, that he had no genuine belief that Brian had committed a crime and that he must under no circumstances touch him. He also told him that he did not consent to being policed. In fairness to APS Harper, he did not lay a finger on Brian, nor even attempt such a manoeuvre.

Michael Bird repeated his statement that Brian could not be guilty because he had been with Brian on both occasions when he had provided his address and bank account details to the police.

This is what APS Harper said: “But the computer says you have committed a crime, so I must arrest you.”

It’s official – policing by computer!

Brian asked for the reasons for his arrest: “…To prevent any investigation being hindered by Essex Police not being able to locate you. Also to allow the prompt and efficient investigation to allow us to obtain evidence by questioning…”

If that were true, then all they had to do was speak to Michael Bird who was prepared to make a statement proving Brian’s innocence on the spot.

So, off they led Brian to the Custody Suite and Michael Bird went home to start calling supporters of Brian, of free speech and of justice.

Brian was duly processed. In the Custody Suite, which is monitored with CCTV and audio, Brian informed the officers that:

(i) he is not a sex offender and the legislation proves it (he referred them to Archbold)
(ii) that he is actually exposing such activity in the book co-authored with the very same Michael Bird who attended the police station with Brian
(iii) that his book has been banned
(iv) that he has videos on Youtube explaining his predicament
(v) that they might like to visit lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com and make some genuine arrests of genuine sex offenders.

They appeared not to be listening, so, for the benefit of the tape recordings, he repeated his statements.

Duly processed, they removed him to Cell 17. He asked for his reading glasses, but wasn’t allowed them.

Under PACE regulations he asked for a paper and pencil, but he wasn’t allowed them.

He asked for a solicitor, but only knew of one in Southend (Jerman, Samuels and Pearson Solicitors, known locally as JSPS). Here is a link to the Directors of this company.

Whilst waiting for the solicitor, Brian then met with the Medical Officer. This was a new departure and had not occurred when he was processed on 1 February 2012 for a similar alleged offence.

The paramedic, name of Steve, was about Brian’s age. He was a decent enough chap. He asked Brian to sign a consent form for his medical records. Brian was not going to sign anything without reading it first and he had no glasses.

The glasses were obtained. Brian read the form and was not happy with it. He said he would only sign it if he added his own comments. He added: “I do not consent to this process or this form” and signed the form (so that they could not say he was not co-operating).

Then, Steve turned over the tri-fold document and revealed that on the front cover it read “The solicitor has told us that there are underlying mental health issues”.

Brian had not seen this front page when signing it.

You can probably see where they were hoping to go with that little trick, but Brian had already stated that he did not consent to the Form.

Brian does not have “underlying mental issues” – though the authorities will always try this with an ‘enemy’. It’s an easy option for them. Pay a couple of doctors to pronounce that a person needs to be Sectioned and before long they’re in a secure unit. There is much about this on the Internet, especially on YouTube.

But Steve had turned out to be a decent chap. He put himself at some risk by showing Brian the first page. He had worked out that Brian was far from having mental health issues. The two men – in a very short space of time – had “sussed one another out” and understood one another on an elementary level.

At around 11pm, a Jane Werry arrived from JSPS in a hoody and tracksuit bottoms. Without a business card (“I forgot them”). Hmmm. Not a good start and highly unprofessional.

Here is her profile on the JSPS website.

It might be worth noting her credentials. Or lack of them in order to deal effectively with Brian's situation.

Brian is a highly experienced therapist. His first encounter with any new person provides him with a great deal of information. He believed that this was not a woman to be trusted. (This is not in any way defamatory - it is merely his opinion. Readers are free to arrive at their own conclusions based on the information provided.)

Brian informed her that he is not a sex offender. She didn’t listen.

He told her that he couldn’t possibly be guilty of the crime for which he been arrested earlier that day because he had provided the police with his details in any event and he had an alibi – co-author Michael Bird was with him when he attended the police station to inform them of his details and he was also with him on this night and was willing to make a statement to police to this effect.

She did not want to listen to this, either. Which is pretty strange.

“I’m paying you, actually,” said Brian, “so I would like you to take my instructions.”

“You’re not paying me,” she retorted, smugly, “the Government is. You’re on Legal Aid.”

She had obviously not heard that Brian has paid his taxes for almost 40 years and his National Insurance for the same period.

“Well, I am deeply concerned about your comments,” added Brian.

Brian studied her face. It was the face of a naughty child who had been caught out, but wasn’t sure, and so had to ask.

“What comments?”

“Where you informed the Police that I have underlying mental health issues. I don’t have any.”

“I never said that.”

“In that case, go and get the Desk Sergeant and I’ll ask him whether you told him that or whether he made it up himself.”

“I’m withdrawing from representing you. You’ll have to get another solicitor.”

“From your firm?”

“No, I represent my firm.”

[In that case, if you were my employee I’d dismiss you for such conduct in a police station, thought Brian.]

She could not scurry away fast enough. She has probably not met the likes of Brian Pead before. [He will be following that incident up with an official complaint in several quarters.]

Brian was led back to his cell.

The civilian officer in charge of the cells was a decent enough fellow. He asked Brian who he should call next.

Tooks Chambers, Farringdon Street. The chambers of Michael Mansfield. He has been sent a copy of the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth.”

So off the nice chap went to call Tooks Chambers.

“They say they have never heard of you. They told me to tell you to try elsewhere.”

“OK, try Pamela Brain of 1 Inner Temple Lane.”

Pamela Brain was a barrister who originally represented Brian at Woolwich Crown Court on a charge of Exposure (he was innocent.)

She then witnessed the Trial at Woolwich collapse because the three females alleging Exposure failed to turn up at Court. The Judge was told that the Police had forgotten to inform them. (Read more about that farce in the forthcoming book For Whom the Bell Tolled.)

The nice chap returned.

“They can’t help either. The problem you’re having is you’re giving me the names of barristers’ chambers, not solicitors.”

Brian knew this, of course, but he wanted this process recorded: that Tooks failed to assist and that One Inner Temple failed to assist.

“What options am I left with, my friend?”

“Well, I’ll just have to go to the Call Centre and see what turns up.”

“Fine,” said Brian, “let's do that.”

He knows that it is a lottery. The quality of Duty Solicitors varies widely.

The Desk Sergeant, Steve May, then arrived in Brian’s cell (uninvited) and said, “We have reviewed all of the paperwork and you’ll be out of here tonight. We have no intention of keeping you here tonight” which Brian took for “Police-speak” as “Hard luck son, you ain’t going nowhere tonight.”

The 6ft5½tall sergeant (Brian asked him) smiled, turned on his heels and went home, his shift over.

And so it turned out that Brian’s assessment of the situation had been correct.

Brian woke around 7am and asked for a shower and to clean his teeth.

About an hour later, his requests were granted. He was surprised at how fluffy the towels were!

Feeling alert and refreshed, he requested some reading materials, some paper and a pencil. His wishes were granted.
Two magazines about gadgets were given to him which is probably about the worst possible reading material to give him since Brian has no interest in gadgets, but nonetheless the Cells Officer had done his best.

Brian set about recording the events of the previous evening in great detail.

Then he ate two Cereal bars.

Then a Solicitor arrived, a young man from an Essex and Suffolk firm of solicitors called Taylor Haldane Barlex that Brian had not heard of before, or he would have remembered such unusual names (he has a thing for language).

The young man looked about 20 but was about 28-30. He was actually a decent chap and named Paul Markham, who looked nothing like he does in this photo.

After providing his full details, Brian informed him that he wished to make a “No Comment” interview because the police had been given sufficient information the previous night (by both Brian and Michael Bird) that proved Brian’s innocence.

Paul Markham suggested otherwise. Having heard all of the facts, Mr Markham suggested to Brian that he merely “…reiterate the facts to the officers in order to ‘advance your defence’. By all means refuse to answer any tangential questions. It seems there was no good reason for your arrest and detention…”

So an interview was arranged for Interview Room 1. This room has no table. The interviewing officers were PC Coombes (75378) and PC Wilson (74214).

Brian has been arrested every year since 2008. Sometimes twice on the same day!. He is used to all types of combinations of interviewing officers. The good cop-bad cop routine is old news to him.
But here he had good cop-good cop. This routine was new to him!

The interview commenced at 09:42. This was his late father’s birthday. Thus the entire arrest, incarceration and interview had spanned the birthdays of his late brother (Robert) and his late father (Frederick). This was, in a strange quirk of fate, rather appropriate, since it was his late brother's death on board a Lowestoft trawler in 1972 that led Brian to give up his day job at the time and find work as a trawlerman as a callow 19 year old in order to investigate (under cover) his brother's death.
And it was Brian's late father who repeatedly told Brian that “if you give 'em enough rope, they'll hang themselves.”

Both men played an important part in Brian's life for very different reasons, but they came to mind throughout his time in the police station.

The interview was textbook stuff.

The interview ended at 10:13.

The two officers had conducted themselves impeccably.

During the debrief, Paul Markham told his client: “It went well. There were no issues. I hope it goes nowhere. You gave a good account of yourself. Even if they did charge you, bail should not be an issue. Hopefully there will be No Further Action.”

And so back to the cells. To await the decision. The Police would consult with the CPS who would make a decision whether prosecuting Brian Pead would be in the public interest. (This is always the standard by which cases are judged … yet Brian had been on the wrong end of ridiculous decisions on too many occasions to take anything for granted.)

Then he was called for fingerprinting. He had informed the Desk Sergeant (Steve May – the gentle giant) the previous evening that he did give his consent to being finger-printed or to have his photograph taken or to have a DNA sample taken. (All of this is on the PNC in any event.)

It appears that the Police do not understand the phrase “I do not give my consent.” They appear to believe that this means you are refusing. It does not. It merely means that you do not consent to them taking your fingerprints etc. Since the option is being forced by 6 burly coppers to have your prints taken, Brian Pead chose instead to comply with their instructions, but still refused to give his consent.
The civilian taking his prints was a decent chap. He had joined the Police as a cadet, but so far had failed to be accepted as a police officer. But at least he had not given up. He was still chasing his
dream and Brian respected that.

Back to the cells after finger-printing.

Shortly afterwards, at around midday, Brian was released.

Desk Sergeant Price provided Brian Pead with a NOTIFICATION OF NO FURTHER ACTION sheet. The box which stated “There is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” was ticked.

It didn’t actually say that Brian was innocent. Michael Bird had not been required to make a statement.

Before he left the station, an officer spoke to Pead. “It’s clear from evidence that you are an innocent man and the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but you have to comply with the Court Order, even if it’s wrong.”

For reasons of confidentiality, Brian Pead will not reveal the name of that police officer, who did not have to say what he said. So he commanded Brian's respect – which is hard to earn in any event.
Officer Coombes asked Brian if he wanted to have a lift home. Although he lives a 5-minute walk from the police station, he asked for a lift.

Brian then had to go to the Front desk to provide his official details “on the correct form”. Brian had been arrested because he hadn’t provided Essex Police with his details on the correct form, even though the form is computer generated within the police station! So, short of going into the back office of the police station, it’s impossible to comply with such a request.

However, the form Brian Pead was given to sign contained several errors. It claimed that his offence was “Causing or Inciting a Girl Under 13 to Engadge in Sexual Activity” (their spelling mistake).
Brian has never done this. He has never been charged with this. He has never been on trial for this.

Then the form claimed he was convicted of this offence on 22 November 2011.

This date is incorrect in any event. He was never on Trial at that time.

The form stated that Brian was given a 3-month suspended sentence. This is also incorrect.

Brian signed the form “ I AM NOT A SEX OFFENDER. SOME DETAILS ON THIS FORM ARE WRONG.)

Brian informed the desk operative that details were wrong. He merely shrugged.

Brian was taken back to his home address by PC Coombes and PC Wilson, who drove. It turned out that PC Coombes has been an officer for 7 years and loved his job. PC Wilson had been an officer for 4 years and wasn’t quite as enthusiastic as his colleague.


Both officers were extremely civil and a credit to Essex Police.

However, not a single officer asked Brian (or Michael Bird) to complete their original reason for going to the police station – trespass, harassment and assault of a frail 75 year old neighbour.

© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverUp.com 2013 All Rights Reserved


Sunday, 17 March 2013

Brian Pead in Court again!

Sunday, 17 March 2013


Brian Pead in Contempt of Court Hearing

Thursday 14 March 2013
The Royal Courts of Justice, Court 14 before Mr Justice Tugendhat
Brian Pead v Lambeth Council, Pinsent Masons, Cathy Twist, Phyllis Dunipace
In the matter of Contempt of Court by Brian Pead. This is the man who is single-handedly harassing all of Lambeth Council’s employees and the entire workforce of Pinsent Masons, the international law firm “with a global reach”. And Cathy Twist. And Phyllis Dunipace. So, this individual is apparently causing alarm and distress to thousands of people simultaneously.
Brian had received no notification of this impending court action. He certainly never heard a thing from the Court, although the Court has details of his address and telephone number.
On the afternoon of 13th March 2013, he happened to come across a letter with his name on it in the lobby belonging to his elderly neighbour. For the record, Brian has no front door on to the street. His own front door into the lobby owned exclusively by his neighbour has no letterbox. Perhaps this is the reason why letters addressed to him often do not reach him. Many people had suggested that his mail was being intercepted, but surely this can’t be so. It must be because he has no letterbox that letters fail to arrive, or those that do arrive are often torn open or not even sealed! We have photographic evidence to support this claim.
Upon seeing this one-page letter from Pinsent Masons, Brian was caused significant alarm and distress and went to see another neighbour. Brian had no intention to commit the act of Contempt of Court, which he believes to be a Common Law misdemeanour in any event.
From his neighbour’s house, Brian called Pinsent Masons and asked to speak with James McBurney, the lawyer apparently handling the case. Brian was told that McBurney was out, then at his desk on another call … the familiar pattern.
Brian asked the female to get Mr McBurney to call him back as it was an urgent.
He then told the female that he was recording the call, at which point she slammed the telephone down. The international law firm with a global reach appears not to set aside much funding towards staff training.
Throughout that entire afternoon, Brian received no call from Pinsent Masons or the court.
On his way to the Court, Brian received an urgent telephone call from his distressed 75-year-old female neighbour whose private life had been violated by two “burly officers” from Southend Police station. (This is an assumption because they did not show ID and they did not tell her where they were from.) They were in full uniform and arrived in a marked police car. (This display is done to alert all the neighbours in the vicinity and to provide a show of force and reassurance that our tax pounds are being well spent.) Her Article 8 Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 – the Right to Privacy and Family life were violated by Southend Police, who have caused her similar alarm and distress on two previous occasions. This constitutes a “course of conduct” under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Upon arrival at Court, Brian made his way to the Listings Office and was told that a Contempt of Court Order would have to be made and issued by the Court and not Pinsent Masons. Brian asked why he had not been informed by the High Court and was told that he had been informed on 25 February 2013. But he didn’t receive such a letter. (This is part of the game they play. Don’t send him the documents or letters and claim that HE is being obdurate or even that he is lying by claiming that he has not received the paperwork they HAVEN’T sent. Jolly japes.)
He then made his way to Court 14. Mr Tugendhat was hearing another case, so Brian made his way to the Public Gallery to complete his notes for his own Hearing (not having been granted sufficient time in which to prepare).
Mr Tugendhat did not look very pleased to see Brian.
The first hearing (WXY v Gewanter and Others) ended at 10:45.
Caroline Addy represented the four parties. Pinsent Masons had instructed her.
At 10:50, Ms Addy attempted to serve 3 lever-arch files on Brian Pead. He did not touch them or accept them as being served.
At 10:55, Ms Addy said, “Mr Pead, may I ask you a question?” (She just had.)
Brian Pead: “No, sorry.”
10:58 and absolute silence in Court, so much so that Brian heard the clock ticking.
The Court Usher asked Caroline Addy and Pinsent Masons and Lambeth Council if they were ready – she didn’t look at Brian Pead or ask him if he was ready.
At 11:00 Judge Tugendhat appeared in full robes.
Addy: I appeared before you on 30 January 2013 to seek Orders against Mr Pead on the grounds of privacy and harassment.
Judge:I am considering whether I can proceed today or not. Mr Pead doesn’t have legal representation.
Addy: Can I tell you about informing Mr Pead?
Judge: Yes.
Addy: We have included in the bundle a Certificate of Service. We have emails. Logs of phonecalls. He is uncontactable! We say that Mr Pead has been properly served.
What he has not been given is the hearing Bundle because we cannot get it through his letterbox.
We asked a courier to deliver the Bundle. Mr Pead has refused to co-operate.
You will have seen from my skeleton argument that there was a defect because it omitted the penal notice to attend.
We understand that Mr Pead is entitled to Legal Aid.
Judge: Where is the letter claiming service?
Addy: We know he received it because he went to his website and ran a story entitled ‘Harassment’.
Judge: Where is his response?
Addy: Not in the bundle. My bundle is not up to date.
Judge: I have a letter at 9A in the Bundle. It’s from Ms Mills at Pinsent Masons who works with Mr McBurney.
Addy: The position is that Mr Pead declines to answer emails/ letters or even answer the telephone. (She forgot to add that he refuses to answer Unknown numbers and they always call using Unknown numbers. Evidence? The log of phonecalls on his mobile phone.)
Judge: I am still considering the issue of representation…
Addy: He is entitled to …
Judge: I will ask him.
Judge: This is an Application to commit you to prison for Contempt of Court. The Court has the power to commit you to prison for Contempt.
Pead: I wonder why you are referring to only one of THREE possible options for Contempt not that I believe I am guilty of contempt in any event.
Other options, as you will know, include a fine or one’s assets being seized. I have no assets.
Judge: I am referring to the prison option because, since custody is available to me, I am duty bound to ensure that you have legal representation.
Pead:Well, I have with me a copy of my Notes regarding Void Orders…
Judge:Did you prepare a copy for the Court and Miss Addy?
Pead: No, I didn’t have sufficient time in which to prepare.
11:17 … copies being made of Brian Pead’s notes.
Judge:Miss Addy, how long is this Hearing listed for?
Addy:It is listed for 3 hours. We have to accede to Mr Pead’s right to obtain legal representation.
Judge:Yes.
Addy:Mr Pead needs to have a fair process.
Judge:I am not asking you to comment on Mr Pead’s rights.
I am going to rise for a few moments because of the photocopying.

11:20 Brian Pead asked a female sitting to his left the front of the Court who she was. She replied that she was a court reporter from Sweet and Maxwell.
11:25 The photocopying of Brian Pead’s notes is completed.
Pead:In my notes, it says: “A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning), then there is no real Order of the Court”.

And since they have failed to serve me properly and committed other breaches of the Civil Procedure Rules, I am declaring the Order is Void and I do not have to comply with it.

Furthermore, Lord Denning stated: “…A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing…” MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961]
Addy:We move to hear again in 14 days.The last day of the Michaelmas Term is 27 March 2013. We say that Mr Pead should serve his evidence by 21 March 2013. Practice Direction 81, 15(4) states…
Judge:I haven’t got that. (Yes, he truly said that! A High Court Judge did not have on his bench the latest copy of the White Book and appendices.)
Addy: It’s in the 2nd supplement 2012.
Pead:When does the new term start please?
Clerk:9 April 2013.
Judge:Mr Pead, this is a court of unlimited jurisdiction. The Orders you claim are Void are not Void until an application is made for them to be declared by the Court as Void. Until then, you must obey them. They have to be obeyed by everybody, even you.

Pead:I request that this Hearing commences in the new term, after 9 April 2013 in order to give me more time to locate a trustworthy lawyer and for me to prepare my defence with that lawyer.
Judge:I’m against you on this.
Pead:I thought you might be.
Judge:The hearing is on 27 March 2013.
All those interested in justice, free speech and rooting out corruption should try to attend Court on the 27th. We believe that the present justice system does not like full public galleries because those in the legal system are then more accountable because lots of eyes are on them and they have no idea who will be attending. For all they know, another Judge from another part of the country, or an international judge might be watching them. Please call 0756 400 2493 for more information on this case.
Alternatively, please click here .

Copyright. All Rights Reserved 2013

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

further abuses by Lambeth Council

Here's more information about Brian's case:
Brian would like to thank all his friends and supporters for their kindness and the support they have shown him.
We'll keep you posted when we have more news!
Kind regards
All Around Justice

further abuses of process - naughty Judge Tugendhat!

Here's more information about Brian's case:
Brian would like to thank all his friends and supporters for their kindness and the support they have shown him.
We'll keep you posted when we have more news!
Kind regards
All Around Justice

Brian Pead in Court - again!

Here's more information about Brian's case:
Brian would like to thank all his friends and supporters for their kindness and the support they have shown him.
We'll keep you posted when we have more news!
Kind regards
All Around Justice

Further human rights abuses of Brian Pead

Despite the international law firm Pinsent Masons not providing Brian Pead with details of which Court to attend (just one of their little tricks in the game they call "Jolly Japes"), we have tracked this case down:

Click here to see the Court Listings for the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London for Thursday 14 March 2013.

We ask that all of Brian's supporters and supporters of truth, justice, freedom of expression and human rights attend Court 14 on 14 March 2013 where Brian will once again become acquainted with Mr Tugendhat, the brother of a former Conservative MP.

The case is scheduled to be heard "not before 10.30". This is Court-speak for "We'll keep you hanging around Court all day."

© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverup.com 2013 All Rights Reserved

human rights abuses of Brian Pead

Despite the international law firm Pinsent Masons not providing Brian Pead with details of which Court to attend (just one of their little tricks in the game they call "Jolly Japes"), we have tracked this case down:

Click here to see the Court Listings for the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London for Thursday 14 March 2013.

We ask that all of Brian's supporters and supporters of truth, justice, freedom of expression and human rights attend Court 14 on 14 March 2013 where Brian will once again become acquainted with Mr Tugendhat, the brother of a former Conservative MP.

The case is scheduled to be heard "not before 10.30". This is Court-speak for "We'll keep you hanging around Court all day."

© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverup.com 2013 All Rights Reserved

More human rights abuses regarding Brian Pead!

Despite the international law firm Pinsent Masons not providing Brian Pead with details of which Court to attend (just one of their little tricks in the game they call "Jolly Japes", we have tracked this case down: <a title="further proof of Lambeth Council corruption" href="http://lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com/wp-content/uploads/ALLEGED-CONTEMPT-OF-COURT.pdf" target="_blank">Click here to see the Court Listings for the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London for Thursday 14 March 2013</a>.

<strong>We ask that all of Brian's supporters and supporters of truth, justice, freedom of expression and human rights attend Court 14 on 14 March 2013 where Brian will once again become acquainted with Mr Tugendhat, the brother of a former Conservative MP.</strong>

The case is scheduled to be heard "not before 10.30". This is Court-speak for "We'll keep you hanging around Court all day."

© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverup.com 2013         All Rights Reserved

Pinsent Masons (note the word 'Masons')

This afternoon (13 March 2013) Brian Pead came across a letter from international law firm Pinsent Masons (who claim he is harassing their entire global workforce, not bad for a lone individual) in which the law firm with an "international reputation" stated that Mr Pead has to appear in Court tomorrow (14 March 2013) on a charge of Contempt of Court.


No other details were provided.

Perhaps the most interesting detail left out of this letter from a law firm with a global reach was that they didn't even mention which court he was due to appear in.

This might be a simple oversight or, more likely, it is all part of their jolly japes in which they give a Defendant no time in which to prepare, no time to alert witnesses to fill the public gallery and no time to access the assistance of a barrister. And, of course, their jolly japes includes the fact that, by not turning up at Court, this will give the judiciary yet another reason to "justify" its harassment of an innocent man who merely brought corruption at Lambeth Council to the attention of Phyllis Dunipace and give them a reason to unlawfully arrest Brian Pead again when he wasn't even made aware of which court to attend!

More smoke and mirrors. More legal games. Could it be because of the following:

Two videos are presently on YouTube which draw attention to the unlawful activity which was occurring within Lambeth Council.

The first video (below) is about the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth by Brian Pead and Michael Bird, Invenire Press, 2012. The book currently has two gagging orders against it, so it must be good!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PR4SsAhxjcw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The second video (below) is about Brian Pead taking Lambeth Council to the High Court for defamation, wrongful dismissal and host of other torts.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-rYqu-X4Ygs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
© 2013 All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Lambeth Council exposed on YouTube

Two videos are presently on YouTube which draw attention to the unlawful activity which was occurring within Lambeth Council which Brian Pead and James Walker exposed in their different ways.

The first video (below) is about the book <em>from Hillsborough to Lambeth</em> by Brian Pead and Michael Bird, Invenire Press, 2012. The book currently has two gagging orders against it, so it must be good!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PR4SsAhxjcw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The second video (below) is about Brian Pead taking Lambeth Council to the High Court for defamation, wrongful dismissal and host of other torts.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-rYqu-X4Ygs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

© Invenire Press Limited 2013 All Rights Reserved

Sunday, 10 March 2013

Official : decades of child abuse at Lambeth Council

Paedophile network abused 200 children (19.2.00)

The Independent, February 19th 2000
By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
MORE THAN 200 children are believed to have been abused by a network of paedophiles in London care homes.

Seven people have been arrested and 11 council workers suspended in the on-going police inquiry covering 20 years of sexual and physical abuse.

Scotland Yard is still trying to trace suspected paedophiles who worked in up to 25 children’s homes in the south London borough of Lambeth.

The inquiry, codenamed Operation Middleton, was set up last year after a former care worker in Lambeth was jailed at Liverpool Crown Court for abusing 12 boys. He admitted 35 offences both on Merseyside and in Lambeth. The London-based inquiry focused initially on Lambeth children’s homes, but has since expanded to local authorities nationwide.

The investigation is examining alleged abuse in Lambeth homes from 1974 to 1994.

So far the team has traced about 200 children who have claimed they were abused, including allegations of rape, buggery, and physical assault. The youngest victims were only nine at the time of the alleged assaults, which are said to have taken place from the 60s to the late 80s. In the past 24 hours another five victims have contacted the police.

Scotland Yard disclosed yesterday that they were still seeking the whereabouts of dozens of former care workers.

About 1,400 people worked at the children’s homes in Lambeth – which were all closed down by 1995 – but police are concentrating on tracing the alleged abusers named by the victims. About 7,000 children stayed at Lambeth’s homes during the relevant period.

So far police have arrested five men and two women during the 14-month inquiry. Eleven employees of Lambeth council have been suspended and face disciplinary charges for a range of offences including mismanagement.

A small number of people accused of child abuse have been found working in local authorities outside Lambeth, and have now been suspended.

Links have also been discovered between several of the key suspects. They were found to have worked together in the same homes, given each other references and carried out training courses together.

Detective Superintendent Richard Gargini, who is leading Operation Middleton, said: “There appears to be some linkage between people who were operating in the care system between 1974 and 1994.”

Friday, 8 March 2013

Banned Book UK, Brian Pead on You Tube

Posted on YouTube:



Brian Pead = 'the best of British' - you won't find his like a couple of generations into the future, our country and culture of common sense, fairness, compassion and humour will be lost forever to the techno-brutes who get off on abusing children and the vulnerable, plenty of those around in Nazi times and now they are endemic in our Councils which is why this brave whistleblower is being persecuted!

Sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rYqu-X4Ygs



Monday, 4 March 2013

Lambeth Chilren's Units described as "a serious scandal"

from the Streatham Guardian in the public interest
7:10am Thursday 23rd September 2010 in News by Matt Watts.

A former councillor has called for an independent inquiry into “serious scandals” that allegedly occurred in a children’s department at Lambeth Council.

At a town hall committee meeting on Wednesday, September 15, Graham Pycock claimed the council was more interested in suppressing information about allegations relating to children and young people’s services (CYPS) than scrutinising them openly to ensure they could not happen again.

He said he was concerned about a “disastrous” council-run trip to Birmingham in March 2007 to reconcile gang-leaders – which was allegedly poorly supervised and led to one youth being beaten up.

Mr Pycock also warned there were shortcomings in Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks relating to convicted paedophile Jason Hoyte, who groomed young victims on a council-funded project on council grounds in Nettlefold Hall, West Norwood, between 2004 and 2006.

At the time he was employed directly by the council as a library worker. Mr Hoyte was able to claim he was checked by the CRB as a youth worker without being checked by the council.

Mr Pycock, a former Gipsy Hill councillor who lost his seat at the last election, addressed the CYPS scrutinee committee as he introduced a report into the department, which he was ordered to carry out after the allegations emerged last year, when he was sitting on the committee.

Allegations of financial irregularities in CYPS were also made. Fellow commissioner of the report Councillor Roger Giess said there had been “a car crash in the management of the service” and “people left under a cloud”.

However, Mr Pycock said he was not allowed to include the claims as background to his final report, nor could they form part of the investigations. He said, while internal investigations had taken place, the reports had never been released publicly or discussed in a public forum.

He said he was still unconvinced problems with CRB checks could not recur and demanded an independent inquiry.

Officers said the incidents were left out by other councillors who authored the report, not council officers.

CYPS divisional director John Readman said: “The allegations were fully investigated.”

He said Pricewaterhouse Coopers had audited CYPS, and allegations relating to the Birmingham trip were investigated.

He said police had received no crime reports relating to the Birmingham trip.

The meeting was told, as a result of Hoyte’s crimes, an internal review was carried out to ensure its safeguarding procedures were as robust as possible.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

1) John Readman conducted an Appeal into the unlawful dismissal of Brian Pead from the pupil referral unit known as the OLCVS operated by Lambeth Council in 2007. He failed to investigate Mr Pead's claims against Maryn Murray (an unqualified South African teacher who had not been CRB checked by Lambeth) which were supported by incontrovertible evidence.

2) Mr Readman is now Corporate Director of Children and Young People's Services Room 42, Guildhall, Hull, HU1 2AA.

3) What were the findings of the "...internal review carried out to ensure its safeguarding procedures were as robust as possible..." ?

4) Were these findings ever published by Lambeth Council?

 

TAGS

John Readman, Lambeth Council, child abuse, pupil referral units, Jason Hoyte, West Norwood, West Norwood library, Nettlefold Hall, Maryn Murray, Brixton police, Roger Geiss, Graham Pycroft

Saturday, 2 March 2013

Author Michael Bird speaks out against victimisation of Brian Pead

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
02 March 2013
Michael Bird speaks out!


Michael Bird, co-author of the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth, Invenire Press, 2012, which currently has TWO gagging orders against it because it exposes child abuse, racism and corruption in Lambeth Council, has broken his silence to speak out against the State’s appalling treatment of Brian Pead, an innocent man.

Not content with banning sales of the book, officers of the State posted further defamatory comments on Amazon which included '…Brian Pead is trying to re-write history of his time at Lambeth…'

Had that been the case, then why ban the book from distribution? If the book was rubbish, why would the authorities go to such extreme lengths to ban the book from distribution in England and Wales?

Michael Bird has issued the following statement through his advisors:

“…I am amazed that Lambeth Council hasn’t taken responsibility for their obvious failings in this situation.
I am even more surprised that they are compounding this by just taking Brian Pead to court for alleged defamation and harassment.

As co-Author, I have not been contacted by anyone from Lambeth Council or Pinsent Masons to date.
Over the past 4 years, I have borne witness to the appalling treatment of Brian Pead by the State. I was in attendance at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 when a Judge told a jury (which had not been sworn in) that they could not find Brian guilty of incitement where there was no victim.

In fact, a female juror asked the Judge for directions and she specifically asked Nicholas Loraine-Smith if they could find Mr Pead guilty of the alleged incitement of a 14 year old girl where no such person existed. The Judge told the entire jury that, no, they could not find Mr Pead guilty of a crime, yet they returned a perverse verdict of 10-2 against him.

I was also in Court in January 2012 when PC John Brown of Bexleyheath Police entered false evidence into Woolwich Crown Court and lied throughout his time on the stand. The Judge in that case informed the Jury that she was stopping the trial because PC Brown was a '…wholly unreliable witness who had entered demonstrably false evidence into Court…'

I have seen Brian treated shoddily by the State, and to date no-one has been reprimanded.

We are still waiting to hear from the Prime Minister with regard to the OBE being forfeited by Phyllis Dunipace…”

-END OF STATEMENT-

Thursday, 28 February 2013

Lambeth child abuse


This website is being sent intelligence about Lambeth Council and child abuse on a daily basis. Note the dates in the following reports. It would appear from an analysis of the intelligence that comes into the office that there has been a long period of historic abuse of children in schools and children's homes operated by Lambeth Council and it would also seem that Executive Officers of Lambeth Council are complicit in covering up the abuse.

In the public interest, this website reproduces articles about abuse below:

The Independent, July 6th 1999
By Kim Sengupta

A SOCIAL worker who carried out dozens of sex attacks was allowed to keep his job as the head of a children’s home, despite the fact that local authority officials knew he had been convicted of a paedophile offence.

The decision by Lambeth Council in south London not to dismiss Michael Carroll after learning about his indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy emerged yesterday as he pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to 35 charges of child sex abuse over 20 years.

The council found out about Carroll’s conviction in l986 when he was running a children’s home in the borough, and issued him with a written warning. He was dismissed five years later after an investigation into financial irregularities.

Heather Rabbatts, Lambeth’s chief executive, admitted last night that the decision not to sack Carroll was a “serious error” which would not happen under today’s regulations. “Knowing what we know today about the nature of these offences and the nature of those who commit them, it was a mistake not to have dismissed this man. However, different legislation applied at that time and Carroll was allowed to continue in his post,” she said.

Ms Rabbatts, who was not in charge while Carroll was employed, said restrictions imposed by police and social services inquiries into alleged child abuses meant no further details about his actions as a council employee could be disclosed.

Scotland Yard has amassed a database of 14,500 names of children in the borough’s care between l974 and l995. Lambeth closed all its homes for children in care in l995 in response to concern about abuse.

Yesterday, Carroll, 50, of Oswestry, Shropshire, pleaded guilty to 24 indecent assaults, five cases of buggery and five of attempted buggery, and one act of gross indecency against 12 boys. All the offences took place while he was working in residential care in Merseyside and London between l966-86.

Carroll was originally charged with 76 offences. The Recorder let the remaining indictments lie on file. Sentencing will take place on 30 July.

Carroll, who was born in Liverpool and grew up in care, studied child care and obtained qualifications at Liverpool and Salford universities and the Mabel Fletcher College, Liverpool. He got a job at St Edmund’s Orphanage in Bebington, Merseyside, in the mid-Sixties and in l978 became deputy officer at a children’s home in Lambeth, taking charge in l980.

He was convicted of indecent assault against a 12-year-old in l966 when he was at St Edmund’s Orphanage. He failed to declare this conviction when he took up the post in Lambeth, but it came to light in l986 through police checks when he applied to foster two children from another borough.

Following a written warning, Carroll continued in his post until his dismissal over allegations of financial malpractice in l991. He moved to Chirk, Clwyd, and bought a hotel business. In l997 he came under suspicion during a major investigation into child abuse launched by Merseyside Police. He was arrested shortly afterwards.


Paedophile network abused 200 children (19.2.00)
The Independent, February 19th 2000
By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent

MORE THAN 200 children are believed to have been abused by a network of paedophiles in London care homes.

Seven people have been arrested and 11 council workers suspended in the on-going police inquiry covering 20 years of sexual and physical abuse.

Scotland Yard is still trying to trace suspected paedophiles who worked in up to 25 children’s homes in the south London borough of Lambeth.

The inquiry, codenamed Operation Middleton, was set up last year after a former care worker in Lambeth was jailed at Liverpool Crown Court for abusing 12 boys. He admitted 35 offences both on Merseyside and in Lambeth. The London-based inquiry focused initially on Lambeth children’s homes, but has since expanded to local authorities nationwide.

The investigation is examining alleged abuse in Lambeth homes from 1974 to 1994.

So far the team has traced about 200 children who have claimed they were abused, including allegations of rape, buggery, and physical assault. The youngest victims were only nine at the time of the alleged assaults, which are said to have taken place from the 60s to the late 80s. In the past 24 hours another five victims have contacted the police.

Scotland Yard disclosed yesterday that they were still seeking the whereabouts of dozens of former care workers.

About 1,400 people worked at the children’s homes in Lambeth – which were all closed down by 1995 – but police are concentrating on tracing the alleged abusers named by the victims. About 7,000 children stayed at Lambeth’s homes during the relevant period.

So far police have arrested five men and two women during the 14-month inquiry. Eleven employees of Lambeth council have been suspended and face disciplinary charges for a range of offences including mismanagement.

A small number of people accused of child abuse have been found working in local authorities outside Lambeth, and have now been suspended.

Links have also been discovered between several of the key suspects. They were found to have worked together in the same homes, given each other references and carried out training courses together.

Detective Superintendent Richard Gargini, who is leading Operation Middleton, said: “There appears to be some linkage between people who were operating in the care system between 1974 and 1994.”

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Hugh Orde, of the Metropolitan Police, said he estimated the number of likely victims to be about 200, although more were being identified all the time.

Because the alleged abuse took place so long ago it has been difficult to obtain enough evidence to bring charges. “It ends up with almost word against word,” he said.

All the victims have been offered counselling. Anyone with information about the case should contact the police on 0171 926 3050

Two key workers at a children’s home were sentenced yesterday to a total of 23 years in prison for a string of sexual assaults on boys in their care.

Former Deputy Principal Barrie Alden, 66, from Norwich, and ex-house master John Wright, 56, from Talgarth, Powys, were sentenced at Newport Crown Court. Alden and Wright committed the offences on a total of eight boys at the Ty Mawr residential home, near Abergavenny, South Wales, from the 1960s to the 1980s.

Paedophilia: Beck’s appalling crimes just the tip of child abuse scandal – Further scandals may be revealed as inquiries show widespread cases (8.1.01)
February 26, 2013
Frank Beck, Lambeth Children's Homes, North Wales

The Independent, January 8th 2001
By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent

THE APPALLING abuse committed by Frank Beck, who was entrusted with the running of three children’s homes in Leicestershire, was what alerted police officers to the possibility that a national scandal had gone undetected.

Before the conviction of Beck, who was sentenced to five life terms in 1991 for sexual assaults against more than 100 children, few officers believed that such widespread and systematic abuse was possible.

The true scale of Beck’s crimes may never be fully known but he is estimated to have assaulted between 100 and 200 children over 13 years. He was sentenced to a further 24 years on 17 charges of abuse, including rape. He died in jail from a heart attack, aged 52, in June 1994.

Tony Butler, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire and spokesman on abuse issues for chief police officers, said: “In the past social workers and police officers simply didn’t believe the children. We didn’t think that short of thing went on in children’s homes. With Beck’s trial it became painfully clear that they could and did go on in children’s homes.”

Since Beck, many other abuse inquiries and trials have taken place, including the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse into the horrific abuse of children in care homes in North Wales, which was first revealed by The Independent.

But as a survey by this newspaper has found, an unprecedented number of investigations are continuing and many more scandals may emerge.

The survey gives the fullest picture to date of where the inquiries are taking place. Many police forces have attempted to keep their work secret, partly for not wanting to alert potential offenders. Some are also concerned that by going public former residents may come forward and make bogus allegations in the hope of obtaining compensation.

These forces would rather approach potential victims and question them away from the spotlight of publicity. Others believe publicity is one of the best ways of obtaining new witnesses.

The Independent survey has identified 67 separate investigations at 32 of the 44 forces in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where inquiries are either continuing or have recently been completed.

A national database of historic abuse inquiries, most concerning children’s homes and schools in the Seventies and Eighties, held by Gwent police, has a list of 34 forces involved in 98 separate inquiries. The numbers are increasing on a monthly basis.

The database aims to link alleged perpetrators to different inquires, and expose paedophile rings and examples of travelling abusers. So far the police have 59 links or “hits”. These cases are taken from a list of more than 1,800 names of suspected paedophiles, convicted abusers, and care workers, teachers and individuals, who have aroused suspicion.

A total of 67 investigations have been identified by The Independent. The police have asked for details of some of them to remain a secret because they are at a particularly sensitive stage. They involve more than 400 homes and school, at least 2,000 victims, 415 suspects, and have in excess of 400 detectives working on them full-time. They have so far resulted in at least 51 convictions and there are 25 trials pending.

Many of the inquiries are huge and involve substantial resources. In Greater Manchester, Operation Cleopatra is investigating more than 66 care homes. Operation Flight in Gwent is investigating 19 homes, including the former children’s home at Ty Mawr near Abergavenny in west Wales. The police want to trace 10,000 former residents.

In Devon and Cornwall, Operation Lentisk is examining allegations of abuse throughout the two counties between 1960 and 1985. A 34-strong team is investigating allegations from more than 230 former pupils and residents against 102 alleged offenders.

Not surprisingly, considering the vast area it covers, the Metropolitan Police has the most investigations, with 22 recorded on the national police database. These include a 31-strong team to look at 30 local authority care homes in Lambeth over allegations of abuse against up to 200 children, said to have happened from 1974 to 1994.

Operation Care in Merseyside is investigating 84 care establishments. So far 27 people have been convicted of physical and sexual abuse.

The care scandal started to emerge in 1989 when the police investigated a series of complaints from past residents about abuse in Castle Hill, a privately owned home in Ludlow, Shropshire, which took in children from local authorities. Allegations of abuse were made by 57 victims, and in 1991 Ralph Morris, proprietor of the home, was jailed for 12 years.

The inquiry sparked off a series of new investigations, most notably in Staffordshire, North Wales and Leicestershire.

The extent of the institutional abuse, in which hundreds of vulnerable children suffered the most appalling assaults and mental torture, was illustrated by the Tribunal of Inquiry headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. His report, published last February, said at least 650 people had been abused in children’s homes in North Wales.

But while many people had hoped that the worst of the care scandals had already come to light, the extent of the current investigations, and likelihood that these will mushroom, make this a vain hope.

The latest child abuse scandal to hit the Catholic church came to light yesterday as police confirmed investigations into accusations of sexual abuse and brutality by monks.

A report is said to name 12 former teachers and care workers at St Ninian’s List D School. The school, operated by the Catholic teaching order the De La Salle Brothers in Gartmore House, Stirlingshire, was closed almost 20 years ago.

The allegations, which cover more than two decades – between 1960 and 1982 – are believed to centre on seven monks and five staff. Two of the monks have since died while the remaining five have retired.