Continuation of Winter V Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Services.

I asked the usher to explain further. He said the CPS had tried to contact me the previous afternoon, and had failed to make contact. I had arranged and booked the secretary, and somehow my instinct told me that everything was not going to plan, MY plan. I deliberately was unavailable to focus my mind and didn't wish to speak to anyone. The ringers were switched off.

I said it doesn't matter I will wait to see the magistrate, he said there was no point, and I said no thanks I WILL see the magistrate, this is the hearing day and time, I will not leave. He disappeared back to the courtroom. A few moment later, he returned, and restated I could leave and again I refused. He went back to the courtroom and returned inviting me in to the empty court and introduced me to the Barrister standing for the CPS. This person commenced explaining they had tried vigorously to contact me, and failed, but the case had been withdrawn, No explanation. I said it does not matter I wanted to see the magistrate as I had arrived at considerable cost and inconvenience, not only to rebut the allegations but to show harassment, as well as to ask for a Newton Hearing ( A hearing within a hearing to determine the true facts of the case prior to the real hearing, I was in running a computer business at this time,and many of my clients, apart from being British Gas, Rolls Royce, many other leading UK names, including the Royal Family and Saudi Princes, a number of clients were form the law courts, Criminal Lawyers, Judges, Solicitors and a Magistrate, who became a very close acquaintance who advised me to request the Newton Hearing). The police statement,. Which shall be published along with all the rest, names suppressed, had thirteen lines of assertions, of which only 11-12 actually corresponded with reality. The rest were misconstructions, exaggeration, plain simple errors, like the colour of the car was wrong, and downright perjury all sworn under a section 9 statement for TRUTH! The primary items were he stated he stopped me BECAUSE I was seen driving without wearing a seat belt!!!!!!! Now start laughing, I had already videoed the car, and could demonstrate that to make such a statement would require x ray eyes capable of seeing through the engine block and bulkhead to the point where the belt was fastened in the seat clamp. The CPS barrister was a very nice, impressive young man, apparent integrity, but he fell from grace, by trying to send me off, KNOWING I would fail to get costs or at least it would be very difficult. It's funny, When I have been in court, and made an open honest admission to the detriment of my own case. The judge would say, That's very generous of you Mr. W, and clearly it helps the case by showing I am truthful not adjusting the evidence to my advantage.

To continue, The barrister explained (expecting me to be ignorant) that there had been a case in 1992, which showed the manner I was wearing the belt had not been prove to be against the law in the case and its appeal by the DPP. I siled and explained to him I already knew all that, I was here to ask for a Newton Hearing, and prove perjury. On the case brought against me there was clearly no case to answer, it was a set up. SEE the caselaw here.

In came the 3 magistrates. After a few moments the Barrister took the lead and explained they had withdrawn the case for he reasons above explained. He was deeply embarrassed and rushed it out to get rid as fast as possible. I was introduced, and explained thaat I had tried with many letters over the past six months to have resolve the issues without reply. I said I was here for a Newton Hearing to show perjury and harassment, and had requested equipment be provided etc.

The charming female magistrate looked at the Barrister, and gave him such a telling off I cant' recall it all, but said you people continue to do this, leaving cases to the last minute, and the barrister replied he only got the paperwork a few days previously. She was quite appalled and our nice young man simply got redder and redder. She then turned to me saying “Mr. Winter, I know you want your day in court,. But as the case is withdrawn I wasn't going to get it.! I replied explaining that not only there was no case to answer, but perjury had been committed by swearing a section 9 statement for truth while knowing it to be false. She said I would have to take that particular part to the Police Complaints Authority. I said “ I have already prepared the complaint,a and would do so, meantime there was a matter of costs. She asked me for the breakdown, and I said I had consulted two solicitors and hired a secretary and the total was now at about £625. This was awarded, and I would just apply to the court for payment.

It's not all over yet!

Now I went off and filed my complaint against the PC with the PCA, and shortly after had two plain clothed police visit me at home, They wanted to see the evidence, and I refused saying I would keep it for the investigation of the PC. I had the impression they wer very much of the PC's persuasion and felt he had done little wrong.

Weeks went by and after I had forgotten, I received a letter from a female 'Member of the PCA'.

She wrote (from memory, evidence will be shown) While the PC admitted he stopped me for not displaying the tax disk, he went on to say that I “was driving without wearing a seat belt!” And so on.


I sat down a wrote a lengthy letter saying , “Thank you for what you have stated.”

You have now proved the PC committed perjury.

I said I have his sworn section statement for truth saying he stopped me for not wearing a seat belt while driving.

Now I have your written statement saying he stopped me for not displaying a tax disk, I presume this was taken under some informal or formal oath and is now deposed as a fact, which by the way happened to be the truth I can corroborate.

The two statements are contradictory. Under the laws of thought a contradiction shows it is impossible to sustain both as true simultaneously in the same world at the same time, in any world at any time.

If he stopped me for not wearing a seat belt, it cannot be true he stopped me for not displaying a tax disk and vice versa.

It gets more amusing, and I'll try to finish this page tonight.

Next the Member disappears and in steps Sir A Graham, the Boss, for the whitewash, in like manner to T. Redmond with his support for staff, whose assertions are fallacious, contradictory and false, and that's being nice about it.

Some links on the ensuing will take you to he pages so you can see I am not a manufacturers of synthetic, there are specialists in this area employed in high positions who do it far better than I ever could.

First a little reassurance that this is all derived from fact, then an explanation of how these facts show the most awful inequitable and fallacious logic, semantics, casuistry and sophistry agenda driven pushing facts through the distortion mechanisms of standard template structures of responses as a mould comes out of a die. TRUTH DISTORTED to design and by order. The scans of documents have been processed through an OCR reader having the effect of displacing some of the pictures and texts, so the formatting is not a match for the original document, but the text has not been altered in any way except to protect the identity of the individuals who are not included in the remit of this dissertation. The heads of the PCA and LGO are only too well known so there is no real attempt to disguise their names, nor of course mine.

Exhibits. costs car1 car2 car4 Police view

Just check the colour of the car before continuing, then look at how it is NECESSARY to remove the right shoulder strap in order to reach the tax disk on the left windscreen.

Now start laughing, (and there's more when you see the contradiction between the two cases for the Local Ombudsman).

Police statement SWORN FOR TRUTH SECTION 9 STATEMENT! COMPARE IT WITH THE PICTURES FIRST AND SEE IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO notice the incorrectness, instead of noticing it was not being worn at all! Because that is all that is possible to see, (without x ray eyes) and then

I noticed the driver was not wearing his seatbelt correctly. I stopped

the vehicle and spoke with the driver

The seatbelt was secured into its holding correctly, the lower strap was

hanging loosely across WINTERS waist.”

So He SEES the NOT CORRECT, which can only be seeing NOT a belt if true, then explains how he saw it was not correct! What deplorable synthetic construction is this? Next note the statement is NOT sworn for the court, being as it should be, ---------SIGNED.

Next understand why the PC was no available at the court, and reason why?

NOW COMPARE what he says, and this is just the tip of the iceberg, (If I broke this childish construction down properly I would end up writing an MA just on sophistry from two letters), WITH the Pca Statement

The officer concerned has denied your allegations and has given a different account of what happened. PC Mc????? says that he originally stopped you for not displaying your tax disc (that was my allegation) and says that this matter was quickly resolved when you retrieved the disc from your dashboard and the officer was able to check it and confirm it was in order. “

Stop there, If he stopped my for driving without a seat belt correctly worn, , why did I have to lean over and show him the Tax disk?????????

Look at the summons and see if that was what he says! It's the same as hi sworn statement. Lies.......

ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE! He denies my allegations (I said, not alleged, he stopped me for the tax disk) and proceeds to corroborate it, CONTRADICTING his own sworn statement, and it all came from his notebook. So his notebook confirms my assertion, which is denied as an allegation, and goes on to say his worn statement is true, but she never mentions the sworn statement. I really can't continue to break up this mental detritus. It is too irritating. If you think my last sentence is completely followable, it is merely because the casuistry is of the most obvious and appalling kind. See the two statements and work it out for yourself, don't let me guide you, I might just have a bias.

WitnessStatement Compare the highlighted sections in red and blue

PcaStatement with those from the PCA and start laughing, It gets worse.

BEFORE I proceed to the other evidence some 100 pages, of which I have only time to deploy about 10-15, let's look at how shortly afterwards the 'MEMBER' disappears, another steps in to explain, I protest in between, and then in comes the person with all the credent bulk to uphold the staff's fallacious logic, contradictions and spin.

Gone Away Alistair Graham

Conclusion! Complaint cannot go forward because the member has 'gone away' ............ And the sworn truth that was a pack of lies is acceptable, because the evidence available did not meet the standard required for disciplinary action. The evidence was in front of them, (but not available notice) was their own, was contradictory, and shows a sworn statement that was perjurous. But that's all not enough for disciplinary action.

That's how innocent citizens end up in prison, isn't it? (I think it's called stitching up).

More to loom at tomorrow night.

9 10 11 12 13 14