of Winter V Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution
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had been withdrawn, No explanation.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
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.
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.
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.
all over yet!
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.
went by and after I had forgotten, I received a letter from a female
'Member of the PCA'.
(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.
sat down a wrote a lengthy letter saying , “Thank you for what
you have stated.”
have now proved the PC committed perjury.
said I have his sworn section statement for
truth saying he stopped me for not
wearing a seat belt while driving.
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.
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
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.
gets more amusing, and I'll try to finish this page tonight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
laughing, (and there's more when you see the contradiction
between the two cases for the Local Ombudsman).
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)
noticed the driver was not wearing his seatbelt
correctly. I stopped
vehicle and spoke with the driver
seatbelt was secured into its holding correctly, the lower strap was
loosely across WINTERS waist.”
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.
understand why the PC was no available at the court, and reason why?
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
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. “
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
at the summons and see if that was what he says! It's the same as hi
sworn statement. Lies.......
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.
Compare the highlighted sections in red and blue
with those from the PCA and start laughing,
It gets worse.
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.
Away Alistair Graham
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
how innocent citizens end up in prison, isn't it? (I think it's
called stitching up).
loom at tomorrow night.
9 10 11
12 13 14