Disabled Man tries to report Corporate Abuse by Local Authority, his Advocate is falsely arrested and tortured by Police instead!
I am asking that those of you who can, to Come to Reading Magistrates Courts, Civic Centre, Castle St, Reading RG1 7TQ at 9:15am on Thursday 21st September 2017. To Peacefully show support for a fellow DPAC’er and Solidarity against this Injustice.
Update: Thursday 14th September 2017 12:20 hrs, it appears that in light of recent events, the Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO) has done a complete U-Turn over the issue of the Threats made against my client by Reading Borough Council, they will now be investigating this and a number of other issues raised during their previous 4 attempts to investigate these matters. Hopefully this time they will not just accept Mr Chris Brooks responses as evidence on behalf of the Council and seek the actual records. (Although the LGO can work on this basis, given that he is directly named in the complaints, it could be considered inappropriate in the terms of justice for the LGO to just take Chris Brooks written opinions as fact, yet again).
Update: Tuesday 12th September 16:54 hrs, Just came off the telephone with Thames Valley Police, Professional standards (Head office) at Kidlington. Despite the Registered Complaint on the 23rd August 2017, via 101 and the subsequent call back from the Chief Inspector at Reading Police Station. Professional Standards have no records of this complaint. Obviously, they are very concerned, as an alleged breach of Article 3 of the ECHR/HRA is one of the most serious complaints they can receive. They have now logged this as an Official Complaint. However, they are also investigating why there is no log of this?
As you may remember from the previous update, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) give reference to the complaint and the initial response from the Chief Inspector.
Here in the 21st Century Britain with the likes of the Care Act 2014, we think of it as almost a given thing that a Disabled person should be granted Access to An Advocate.
Just to make it clear what an Advocates role is;
Your advocate will only do what you want them to do. This includes:
- Talking to you to find out what you think and what you want
- Explaining things to you so that you can make choices
- Being with you when you meet with health and social care staff
- Speaking up for you, if you want them to
- Getting information you need so that you know all the options open to you
- Telling you everything anyone has told them about you
- Sticking to your brief, however difficult, until you have achieved what you can
Description with courtesy of GAIN. http://www.gain.org.uk/
However, Reading Borough Council seem to have a different understanding of Independent Advocacy. They seem to think that Advocacy means;
- Ignoring you and not caring what you want
- Not bother explaining things, so that you have no choices
- Not being with you, so we can intimidate you more
- Must be silent, even if you really want them to speak for you
- Must never seek your information, as we do not want you to have options
- Definitely must not let you know what has been said
- Have their own agenda, which they abandon halfway through.
I really wish the latter was just sarcasm, however, the experience of the Last 2 years has shown me that it is very much embedded in fact.
Lets start at the beginning of where I became involved, back in Early 2015, I was approached by one of the very respected Seniors (Merry Cross) of the Berkshire Disabled Persons Against Cuts, a local chapter of the National Disable People Against Cuts (DPAC) that many will know from the Protests in the Lobby at Westminster as well as across the Country, fighting for Disabled Persons Rights and trying to challenge the Horrendous cuts that are falling hardest upon Disabled Person shoulders.
Basically Merry Explained to me about a Chap with Cerebral Palsy. who had been having a horrendous time trying to resolve care issues etc with Reading Borough Council. He had not had the best experience with Advocacy that was previously provided by the Local Authority. Ranging from not listening to him, to actually fraudulently claiming money from RBC for Advocacy work they were not even completing.
So I ‘volunteered’ to meet him, to see if there was anything I could do to help get his voice heard and to move things forward.
After our initial meeting, it became very clear that this extremely intelligent chap had been treated atrociously by the local Authority and even the Local Government Ombudsman.
All He had been seeking was another 10 hours care on top of his existing 35 hours a week, so that he could engage socially, go to visit family and attend Chapel to follow his Catholic Faith. As well as get an Occupational Therapist assessment so that the support equipment, that his carer uses everyday could be repaired/replaced.
These genuinely are not unreasonable requests. The Care Act 2014, under ‘Wellbeing’ places certain legal requirements upon a Local Authority
Definition of wellbeing
1.5 ‘Wellbeing’ is a broad concept, and it is described as relating to the following areas in particular:
- personal dignity (including treatment of the individual with respect)
- physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing
- protection from abuse and neglect
- control by the individual over day-to-day life (including over care and support provided and the way it is provided)
- participation in work, education, training or recreation
- social and economic wellbeing
- domestic, family and personal
- suitability of living accommodation
- the individual’s contribution to society
The above is from the Governments Guidance on the Care Act 2014 www.gov.uk
May 2015: As the Result of the ending of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in June of that year, My client had me sit in (along with one of his friends) on a Care Plan Assessment.
From the outset it all seemed to be wrong, there was two Social Workers, no Occupational Therapist. They seemed to be more interested in ticking boxes than actually listening to what my client had to say. There was also the fact that this was a Care Plan Review, not a Full Care Plan Assessment as required by the Introduction of the Care Act 2014 and the ending of the ILF.
The Social Worker continually made excuses claiming not to know anything about the 10 hours extra care, even though it had been presented at 3 previous Care Plan Reviews as well as before the Local Government Ombudsman.
However we did not dwell upon that, the priority was the care needs of my client in the here and now.
The Social Worker avoided, looking at my clients disability support equipment, Citing that was
a matter for the O.T. (Although entirely correct, she did have responsibility to flag the serious issues up).
As you can see in the Gallery above, These are some of the Conditions that the Social Worker refused to note down. Little did we know that the Social Workers failure to note these things was to be just the start of a whole list of troubles for my client and I.
The end of ILF and Migration to Local Authority Funding, from the outset it became very apparent that despite a considerable amount of time to prepare, Reading Borough Council had absolutely no policy in place to handle this.
It took over 20 very lengthy telephone calls with their finance department, before they finally agreed to implement my proposal. This involved, transferring Care for Persons in receipt of ILF to Local Authority funding, on a like for like basis, until such time as to when they could get around to actually assessing them financially.
RBC do not like to admit that it was an unpaid Advocate, that saved their backsides over this one.
Shortly afterwards, my client pointed out that he had not received the Draft of the Care Plan Assessment. These assessments are supposed to be self directed, as such a draft copy is released to the Cared for Person, to challenge or correct mistakes, before the final copy is signed off. After challenging this, my client received a draft and a final copy (which had been signed off by a senior manager). Hand delivered directly to his door.
Although they can sign off on such documents, it is only supposed to be done when a Cared for Person fails to, or is unable to engage in the process. (This was clearly not the case).
Upon closer inspection, my client noticed some major issues.
- The Document had been pre-filled with content from an old Care Plan, which was produced before the Introduction of the Care Act 2014
- They had not even checked the pre-filled document, it was Dated January 2014.
- No mention of the required 10 hours extra care.
- No mention of the need of an O.T assessment
Basically, it was as if the assessment meeting had never occurred and the Social Workers manager just rubber stamped what ever rubbish the Social Worker presented as a report.
Realising that I was going to be in for the long haul, I suggested to my Client that maybe we should concentrate on his care needs, and hold off on further complaints until he had the full records. So my client completed a Subject Access Request (SAR). Basically an application to obtain his records under the Data Protection Act. Of which it was made very clear in writing, that all of the documents should be served to him.
Whilst this was ongoing, RBC removed the previous Social Worker from my clients case, they did not tell him he no longer had an Appointed Social Worker.
A few weeks passed, no new assessment, no SAR documents. Also I moved house.
Upon enquiring with the Legal Department (Headed up By Chris Brooks) as to the whereabouts of my Clients Documents, they became extremely hostile towards my client and I.
This was followed up by claims that they had issued part of my clients file (by basic signed for post) to my previous address, and that this was my fault.
I pointed out to them that it had been made very clear to the Department, that all my clients
sensitive Data should be served directly to him. As I work on a limited personal budget, thus it would not be practical to store such large files in compliance with Security Protocols under the Data Protection Act.
After a lot of calls, they finally admitted their mistake, however even then they tried to claim that I signed for the Documents at an empty former tenancy which I no longer even had the keys for.
When I verified with the Post Office, the signature on file matched nobody’s ever even associated with the Property.
You can read about this here: GetReading News Article
Despite their apologies, they continued to claim that they had done nothing wrong, so my client filed the Matter with the Information Commissioner(ICO). In May 2016, the ICO ruled that Reading Borough Council (Chris Brooks Legal Team) had breached the Data Protection Act 1998.
Chris Brooks, begrudgingly issued a half hearted apology and refused any compensation for the loss of between 500 to 1000 pages of my clients Sensitive Data.
September to December 2015:
After constant delays, another (this time Senior) Social Worker was appointed for my client, Lucy Samson (The reason for naming her will become apparent).
Upon hearing her name, my client said there was a previous serious issue concerning this Social Worker and he would get back to me about that.
A few days later he showed me an email reply produced by Lucy Samson, several years earlier, when he had been seeking help to Study his BA(Hons).
This is what the email contained:
“Our team works with people with severe learning disabilities, mental handicap as it was formally known. The report you sent makes it clear that you do not have a learning disability, as you have, or are currently studying at degree level.”
There are many forms of learning Disability, an I.Q of 70 or below is a very old definition, but other conditions should not be excluded, As an example, Dyslexia is referred to as Language-Based Learning Disability.
In respect of Lucy Samsons comment, although at first glance may seem reasonable, what she is actually saying is that Persons with Learning Disabilities cannot study at University. She was unlawfully discharging her Departments Duty of Care towards my client.
Being a person who is diagnosed as Severely Dyslexic, who is currently Studying a BSc(Hons) Computer Science at the University of Reading, I found Lucy Samsom’s comment to be deeply offensive, As did my client.
After further negotiation, my client agreed that it was in his best interest to seek an official apology from Lucy Samson, upon receipt of that, he would be willing to go ahead with a full Care Plan/ OT Assessment with her in place as his Social Worker.
Despite numerous communications, both by my client and I to Social Services, on November the 23rd 2015, Lucy and the O.T turned up unannounced on my clients doorstep. Given the previous history with RBC and the failure of Lucy to apologise for her previous discriminatory Email, my client refused to let them in.
He was not willing to have a full blown assessment without a witness.
Shortly afterwards, Lucy Samsom wrote to my client, trying to claim that she knew nothing of the Cancellation of the Meeting/Requirement to apologise for her email. This may be entirely true, but that does not inspire confidence in other staff/managers in that department.
Despite this to date, Lucy has never apologised, her senior manager did (verbally),
however, Chris Brooks has put in writing that that there was no discrimination, only to later deny in writing that this matter was ever even presented before him (Chris Brooks has a really nasty habit of documented involvement, then later forgetting it and denying all involvement, Which obviously makes it nigh on impossible to work with him).
Numerous phone calls and Emails to Social Services, by this point they had become obsessed with the previous complaints and kept placing that above the day to day care needs of my client.
On two occasions I had to quite abruptly stop duty social workers from ranting and raving about the complaints and insist upon speaking to their manager. On both occasions their manager apologised for their behaviour.
The outcome of those calls, despite the atrocious behaviour of the Duty Social Workers was that Social Services would appoint another Social Worker at the earliest opportunity. (Even though neither my client or I had requested that, my client just wanted an apology from Lucy Samsom and that was suffice).
A few days later, a senior member of staff (who was leaving that very day), wrote to my client accusing him of being a repetitive complainant, this letter also referred my client to Chris Brooks as his now single point of contact. (This was for everything from his day to day care, finance and complaints).
In case you are not aware of Legal Protocol, if you are Legally represented, then under this protocol, the representatives of the likes of Reading Borough Council are required to speak to your solicitor, no you. Chris Brooks had effectively shut my client out from the very support system that is supposed to be in place for him (By Law).
Every time my client tried to call them, to ask when they would appoint a Social Worker/Carry out the Care Plan Assessment, all staff were directed to forward his calls to Chris Brooks.
As is required (normally every 12 months) my client was contacted by the Council in respect of Disability Related Expenses (DRE). The idea of this is a simple financial assessment, which looks at your income and the extra expenses you have because of your disability, then work out how much contribution you must pay towards your care.
Instantly there were problems:
- It was pre-populated with old data and they refused to allow it to be altered.
- The is a declaration, that a Care Plan Assessment had been carried out.
In the first instance, this prevented my client from supplying up to date income/expenses, in the
latter my client could not make this declaration as he was aware that it was false.
A False declaration on a D.R.E is a criminal offence, yet again Chris Brooks did not care about the Legality, he quite forcefully told my client, “just complete the form and send it in”.
Over the following months, the Social Services just ignored my client, redirecting his calls to Chris Brooks. Whereupon the serious issue over the D.R.E was completely ignored.
Then they came back with a massive 400% increase in contributions. At the most it should have only been about 15% because of the 3 year delay since the last financial assessment. They then just stopped paying into payroll for his Personal Assistant (Carer).
On May 9th and May 16th 2016, Chris Brooks made two unsolicited calls to my private home number (It is ex-directory and had not been supplied to his Department). During both calls he was extremely hostile and abusive. On both occasions I terminated the calls by stating “You have no Legal Right to call me. If you have something to say, direct it to my clients Legal Council”.
Shortly after this, the Local Government Ombudsman once again became involved. At which point Chris Brooks denied:
- That the Department had accused my client of being a repetitive complainant (It was just a Warning of the procedure should he continue to complain). (It clearly stated that he was and who the appointed person was).
- They did not block payments to payroll, although payroll company had confirmed in writing that they did.
- Staff should not be redirecting my clients calls to him, (this would be corrected), It wasn’t instead it continued for months.
On May 23rd 2016 Chris Brooks, contacted my client to trying and obtain my Private Email, Home Address, etc, as the department did not have this information anymore, as confirmed to the ICO. My Client quite rightly refused.
The following day at around 18:00 hours, Mr Brooks approached my elderly neighbour’s door and started asking questions to them about me. My neighbours directed him to the correct bungalow, however, they were so concerned by his rather odd behaviour that they continued to observed him.
Upon attending my door, he presented who he was and that he would like to speak to me, the other resident in this property confirmed to him
- He was not supposed to be there.
- That I had no intention of speaking to him as my client is represented by a solicitor.
- that I was currently contacting the Police.
He laughed (sarcastically), said “Oh really” (Sarcastic tone again) he stepped forward, within six inches from her face in a very intimidating way, and then said, “When are they arriving”? (In an arrogant manner).
At which point, she closed the door and came back into me, as I was still on the telephone with the Police, she was shaken and very angry at the way she had just been spoken to in her own home.
I then approached the door, using my walking stick as an aid to walk, I insisted he had no right to be here, he stepped forward through the doorway towards me in an aggressive manner, then stated “I have every right to be here”.
I then leaned against the inner door frame, grabbed my walking stick six inches below the handle and raised it to shoulder height,
“You have no right to be here,
leave my property or I will use
reasonable force to remove you”.
He laughed then stepped back a little, but still refused to leave. I repeated the warning several more times before moved to the end of the short path. He then tried to claim that the common access path to the bungalows, was a public right of way.
To which I pointed out to him, that:
“the area was clearly marked private property”, and that he
“would have to be beyond that path and the adjoining car park before he was off the private property”.
I had to follow him, directing him time and again that he was not off the property.
Subsequently, he stood next to his blue BMW car, (Photographs were taken) just on the end of the property for over 45 minutes.
The during this time, the Police were still on the phone and were refusing to respond.
The following day two PCSO’s attended my home, just to check we were ok, no officers to take a statement. It took 7 more requests, two further attendances by officers and a Formal complaint to the Police, before even the most basic statement was taken, the other person in the household was never asked for a statement until a few months later (After a formal Police investigation in to the handling of the case). The same occurred in respect of the several neighbours who witnessed Mr Brooks behaviour.
Mr Brooks claimed to the police that.
- I had made two unsolicited telephone calls to him
- That he was there to serve a document from the local authority to me. (RBC is not my local authority, he had no such documents with him).
In his correspondence on behalf of RBC to the LGO, he later admits that he instigated the unsolicited calls to my ex directory telephone number, he does not state how he obtained it. (The Police still refuse to investigate this, although it is classed as an alleged attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice).
He clearly had obtained my address, which is not on public record, without authority, so why did he not issue the letter via, secured delivery or courier?
The following day, he did issue a letter via my private email address (on my private server in Canada) & signed for post.
This letter contained false accusations against myself (he was misrepresenting the horrendous response from the duty social workers as being of my doing), and threats against my client, I.E trying to imply that my client was not capable of making his own decisions.
To date, Mr Brooks has never been investigated by Safeguarding, in respect of this and other incidents, even though standard local authority protocol requires it, even if he is not prosecuted, to ensure the safety of vulnerable persons he presides over in his role for the Local Authority.
Thames Valley Police did claim that the investigation of their handling of this matter would be investigated by another Police force, however, it was handed back to a local Chief Inspector in Charge of Loddon Valley Police station. Who decided that Chris Brooks was acting on behalf of the local authority when he attended my home, virtually nothing was said about the failure to respond.
The whole reason why it was inappropriate for Thames Valley Police to investigate, is that Chris Brooks has close links with them in his role, as well as being the person who signs off on their income from that local authority. There was a direct conflict of interest.
In the mean time, Mr Brooks got progressively more aggressive in his stance with my client, once again getting staff to redirect all communications to him (in breach of legal protocol), he then had finance ‘withhold’ further payments to my clients payroll account for his carer, Repeatedly leaving my clients carer without income.
Mr Brooks later openly admits in writing to the Local Government Ombudsman, that he used the ‘repetitive complainant procedure’ and ‘withholding payment’ to force my client to return a D.R.E (A Disability related expenditure form, which if filed as requested, would have involved my client in what was a serious criminal offence).
Eventually, they said the head of the financial team would speak to my client on the Telephone, to resolve this D.R.E issue, but I was not allowed to be present (Otherwise they would terminate the call). Unbeknown to them I sat quietly in the background whilst he used a speaker phone.
Instead of moving this forward, the Financial Manager proceeded to brow beat my client, ignored the legal issues over the form right up to the point were my client broke down in tears, at which point I spoke up and said “enough was enough, this is a disgusting way to treat somebody”.
I notified them that the entire call was recorded.
They slammed the phone down!
After I ensured my client was o.k, I did a back end Google search on the RBC website and recovered the Financial Framework document (This is the guideline on what a cared for person can claim for to reduce their contributions, RBC would not supply it).
My client completed the D.R.E (redacting the declaration), yet they still illegally processed it without a declaration and reduced his contributions to a just a fraction more than he was paying before.
After the previous financial issues, payroll was stating that the account was still being shortfalled. Chris Brooks once again replied to the Local Government Ombudsman claiming that this was all my client’s fault.
Well in between making false accusations against me, as well as repeatedly attacking my ‘title’ and ‘credentials’ (nearly 90% of his statement to the LGO on behalf of complaints being investigated, was a personal attack on myself), He was supposed to be presenting RBC’s stand point on the serious complaints.
From then right up to the just before the 4th Final Ruling by the LGO in early 2017, Chris Brooks blamed my client and I for everything.
In the meantime, my client obtained the full payroll records, and ran all the calculations himself, what he found was that in the previous 2 years. Reading Borough Council had shortfalled the account by nearly £5000. (whilst blaming him for their financial fraud). Chris Brooks had been fully aware of this shortfall.
Payroll had offset the shortfall, by delaying the payment of tax, to ensure that my client continued to receive care, but when the payments were deliberately stopped completely
on the previous occasions by Mr Brooks, they had no buffer to ensure that wages were paid.
At this point, I should point out, that even if a cared for person refused to pay their contributions, Councils are legally bound to ensure care is in place. By admitting to using processes in this manner to what can only be described as ‘manipulation’ of my client, Mr Chris Brooks was actually admitting to a Criminal offence. (Both RBC and Thames Valley Police refused once again refuse to do anything about).
On the Fourth try the LGO upheld all my client’s complaints (Awarded £500 compensation). He also recommended in light of his findings, that RBC carries out a review of their communications with my Client and I.
Or in plain English, this means RBC have been caught playing silly games, now its time to stop.
Chris Brooks response:
He instructed the review to declare that my client was a repetitive complainant and retrospectively apply that back to February 2016.
Then declare that my client continues to be a repetitive complainant, as does his Advocate.
Yep, you did read correctly, LGO upholds complaints, their response is to retrospectively call my client and I repetitive complainants.
Just for the record, the role of an advocate includes challenging the Local Authority if required. (Advocates cannot be repetitive complainants). This protection is actually built in to the Care Act 2014.
Chris Brooks response: “That only applies to advocates appointed by the Local Authority”.
Yet again Chris Brooks is displaying total lack of knowledge of the law, It applies to all advocates.Even if I swore at staff (not that I ever would) they are Legally bound to respond to any issues that I raise on behalf of my client.
RBC finally got around to carrying out a ‘Full’ Care Plan Assessment for my client (only two years late). However, on the notification they stated that “if my client insisted on having me present as his advocate that the Care Plan Assessment/My clients existing care would be terminated”.
Any threat to terminate the Care for a Person under the Care Act 2014 is a criminal offence, my client flagged this up to the LGO. The LGO refuses to investigate.
After sheer stubbornness (quite rightly) from my client and their further use of this threat, they eventually backed down and the assessment was carried out.
The two independent Social Workers showed their contempt for what had happened by visibly on camera tearing up the previous care plan report and throwing it over their shoulder.
Then saying “Let’s start over”.
Over the following 2 hours we laughed and joked about the entire situation, they applied for the 10 hours extra care, as well as a review later in the year, for my client to go back to University to study for his Masters.
They also put in a recommendation for a full Occupational Therapist Assessment (They were shocked when shown just two photo’s of the support Equipment).
Because of the threats to my client, both my client and I contacted Safeguarding in Reading, in respect of what amounted to ‘Corporate abuse’ by the Local Authority.
They would not even take the complaint. So subsequently I contacted SafeGuarding in my Area at Wokingham, sadly they did not have the jurisdiction, but directed me to the board of the Triborough Safeguarding.
At which point, at their instruction, it was raised with Reading Safeguarding yet again.
They had no response, Chris Brooks override them, took full control of the report, then wrote directly to my client yet again, with what can only described as torrent of abuse aimed at me along with some alarming twists.
- SafeGuarding passed a note to Chris Brooks,
- Chris Brooks had stopped SafeGuarding from responding to allegations.
- Chris Brooks presented that any matter looked at by the LGO will not be looked at by the SafeGuarding.
This is a very disturbing twist to events, as SafeGuarding is not supposed to be answerable to anybody in the Local Authorities, as this would create a conflict of interest.
Nobody in a Local Authority should be able to pick choose what SafeGuarding investigates.
The LGO is not a specialist in care matters/safeguarding, they can only deliberate on matters, such as maladministration and recommend its put right/Compensation.
The reality is that the LGO has very little power over the local authorities, other than naming and shaming them.
In criminal matters such as Corporate Abuse, threats against a cared for person, etc, the LGO is completely powerless.
Yet Chris Brooks, of whom a number of the serious issues directly involve, has placed himself in charge of, and is controlling what they can investigate. It really makes a mockery of the entire Multiagency safeguarding system.
This really was the last straw, I had put up with Mr Brooks waging a personal vendetta against myself for nearly two years.
So I issued a Cease and Desist notice, basically, if he directly/or instructed others to publish the unfounded accusations towards me, he would face legal action for Defamation.
A few days later the Occupational Therapist contacted my client to arrange the requested assessment.
Once again, the threat arose that if I was present as his advocate, the assessment would not take place. However, she directly cited this as ‘Instruction from the Head of Legal Services’ (Mr Chris Brooks).
I contacted her on behalf of my client, mentioning the ‘cease and desist’, throwing out the Olive branch and that this was just an overlap in advice from the Department.
About a week later she wrote back to my client and stated, that the assessment could go ahead and that I could be present if he wanted.
Day of the O.T assessment, the O.T attended with her Senior Manager. However, from the
outset they were in disbelief as to the behaviour of RBC’s legal Services, and we moved on to my clients support needs.
Upon inspecting the condition of my clients support equipment (As shown in the Gallery Above), they openly expressed their disgust as to why this had been delayed so long. Mr Chris Brooks had openly blocked previous O.T assessments, stating, in writing “it would be too expensive for the Local authority to implement”.
In answer to that comment, the O.T and her manager stated clearly, that an O.T assessment can be called at anytime there is a perceived need.
The result is that they are applying for the complete replacement of my clients support equipment, grants to refit the Kitchen/Wetroom and Ramp, to that of compliance and safety.
The upshot of this is that Mr Chris Brooks ‘willfully’ left my client and his carer with faulty and dangerous support equipment, then blocked any safeguarding investigation into his wrong doing.
Now we come to the matter of the threats:
After a conversation with the LGO investigation officer concerning these threats, the LGO directed my client to the Local Police, to raise this as a Criminal Matter. (It would have been more helpful if the LGO had used their remit to place it directly).
Anybody who has ever tried to report a crime via 101, will be aware that it is nigh on impossible. Most often the Civilians that operate those phone lines, wrongfully claim Criminal offences are ‘civil matters’ and refuse to even log an incident. So I fully understood when my client was reluctant to do this.
In an attempt to minimize issues that come from a busy Police Station, we attended the smaller Loddon Valley Police station.
From the outset the SDO (Civilian on the front desk) seemed to take a dislike to the colour of my clients skin, would not listen to him and kept him repeating the same thing over and over. At which point, with my clients authority, I intervened and explained the situation.
The SDO then went back into the office and several minutes later, returned with a senior SDO, who went straight on the attack of me.
I then asked to speak the desk sergeant (although an old term, it is still used by the police force to describe the sergeant in charge of the SDO’s), to which she shouted, “How old are you”? “We don’t have desk Sergeants anymore”.
Whereupon, both SDO’s walked off into the office muttering what appeared to be derogatory comments.
After about 20 minutes a Police Constable appeared and was more concerned with my ‘credentials’ than anything else, claiming I was from the National Crime Agency, I corrected him and showed him my I.D, which he then accepted, then he tried to make out that the threats made towards my client by RBC were not a criminal matter.
I then insisted to speak to a senior officer (and that we could return at another point in time if one was not available then).
The PC left, then returned via a side door about 10 minutes later, by this time my client was getting quite angry and upset about how he was being treated. I have to admit, although I did not express this in front of him, I was furious, as he had done nothing but to try and report a crime.
The Police officer, then repeatedly asked me my Surname, to which I responded “Taggart”.
He then tried to usher us into a side room to speak to him, not a senior officer.
At this point I was becoming concerned for my client and stated that I am terminating this matter here, it will be a part of a formal complaint, Whereupon my client and I left the Building.
About 45 minutes later, we attended the Reading Police Station. We made no mention of the previous behaviour of SDO’s and the PC at Loddon Valley, as the report against RBC was the priority. The SDO, who introduced herself as Lauren, was very professional. She took time to take on board my clients report, then spent about an hour chasing down departments, to figure out how to progress. She then issued a note to my client, explaining what Department had been contacted, to make it easier for other staff when he returned with the Documented Evidence.
On Monday 7th August I attended the Loddon Valley Police station on my own, I requested to speak to a Sergeant. Shortly afterwards the “Desk Sergeant” came down and took my report concerning the previous behaviour of the SDO’s. Whilst I was explaining what had occurred, the Senior SDO came storming out of the office shouting “it was me who he was speaking to”, she proceeded with several profanities before the Sergeant literally had to bundle her back into the office, she could be heard screaming and shouting at the Sergeant for several minutes after that, comments like “he is not the real NCA”.
When the Sergeant returned, I pointed out that ‘there is no real NCA’, and explained how Rt Hon Theresa May had ripped off the logo and surrounding details from the New Cyber Army (N.C.A), to create the National Crime Agency (N.C.A) when she was the Secretary of State.
Obviously I have to deal with these civilians/officers on a regular basis, as an advocate, so I requested that this be dealt with as an informal investigation, in which the member of staff was just reminded that they should not speak to members of the public like that.
I have gone through this with various departments, including Loddon Valley in the past, it tends
to resolve matters more quickly and officers respect that move more.
The sergeant refused, stating this must be a formal complaint, So I asked to speak to the inspector. I made it clear that I was aware that it was around time of shift change and would be happy to speak to them on the phone at another time if it was more convenient.
The Inspector was just leaving but confirmed he would call me back.
The following day, I got a call from the Inspector and he agreed to take the informal approach concerning the SDO’s behaviour towards my client and I and would get back to me within a week or so.
On Tuesday, 22nd August, I attended Reading Police station, to facilitate my client supplying his documents, to the Police to support his report of Corporate Abuse, towards him by RBC.
From the outset, my client (who is etremely observant) pointed out that the SDO’s were acting very odd, almost as if they were nervous about something, Lauren who had been so helpful to my client previously, would not even hold eye contact with him and delegated the matter to another SDO.
This SDO was rather abrupt and would not listen to my client, even when he opened his file, produced the note from Lauren and showed her the letters, from RBC staff and Chris Brooks, threatening to terminate his care.
The SDO went back into the office.
About 30 minutes later she appeared, stating her Inspector had said this was a civil matter and had a list of local Legal Aid Solicitors.
I pointed out my client already has legal counsel, however, this was not a civil matter, it was a criminal matter, which was verified by the LGO and subsequently as the result Lauren’s enquiries last time we attended. I explained I fully understand, this is not the sort of matter you would deal with normally, the LGO really should have directed this to specialist senior officers.
To which she replied, who are you?
My reply, I am General William Taggart of the N.C.A, at which point I clearly showed my I.D which states, ‘New Cyber Army’. “I am (my client names) advocate”.
She then went back into the office again.
Approximately 30 minutes later she appeared, said almost the same as last time, but then added, “but you have quoted chapter 14 of the Care Act”, almost in unison both my client and I said, “we never said that”, “we pointed to 67(5) being misquoted by Mr Brooks”. This was in reference to Mr Brooks, trying to claim that I was being paid by my client. Although not unlawful (despite how Mr Brooks tries to claim it is), it would mean that the local authority would not have discharged duty to supply a free independent advocate.
It was a matter of form anyway, as I am a volunteer, I do not earn a penny for what I do.
I then asked again on behalf of my client to speak to a sergeant,
to which, she then stormed off back into the office again.
By now both my client and I were getting quite hungry, so when the SDO finally came back out again, I said we have to go get some food, could they please arrange an appointment so that we could discuss the matters against the local authority with an officer.
We were about to leave when the Inspector came rushing out with an expression on her face like thunder. She proceeded to harshly speak over the top of my client, would not listen to anything he said. She then stated,
“We are concerned for your Welfare as a ‘Vulnerable Person’,
My client literally shouted at her;
“I am Fully Compos Mentis”, “I am not a vulnerable person”.
I put my hand on my clients shoulder and said to him;
“Calm down (my clients name)”,
“you are being led into a response”,
“You have done nothing wrong”,
“you do not have to say anything”.
“You are only here to report a crime”.
The Inspectors then said:
“we have reason to believe that you are fraudulently claiming to be an advocate”, to obtain money from (my clients name), and that you have falsely claimed to be a General of the National Crime Agency.
At which point, before I even had a chance to stop him, my client shouted,
“He said no such thing”, “he said New Cyber Army”.
“He is a volunteer referred to me by Merry Cross at DPAC, he does not get paid”.
I advised my client that he should leave, as I am concerned for his safety, whereupon we proceeded to leave.
Some of the rest you can observe on this video supplied by my client, (I was concerned about his personal information on it, but he said there is more in the old news paper articles than there is in the video).
In there determination to create a ‘trumped up’ case, shortly after this video, I hand my clients file back to him.
Whereupon one officer grabs his arm to restrain him (he was not being detained or arrested), another dives in full force, elbows him brutally in the chest and levers the folder out of his hands.
The officers shoulder cam and the Stations CCTV show the excessive level of force, used upon a Chap with Cerebral Palsy.
To make matters worse, at this point in time, they had not verified from any other source that he was not a vulnerable person. So in all sense and purposes, they were still of the belief that they were using excessive force on a vulnerable person.
It should be noted that, the file in question, belongs solely to my client. He has since confirmed that it also contains Payroll documents and Court Documents (In respect of the the ongoing County Court Case against Reading Borough Council). The police should not have these in their possession.
In fact they are not allowed to look at or retain court documents, which pertain to a local authority which supplies a large section of their funding.
Yet this did not stop the officer going through said file in the custody suite (On camera), I had to tell him five times that they were private, sensitive data belonging to my client and that he had no warrant, before the custody Sergeant finally stopped him.
As had been presented on Social Media, I was arrested for;
“Impersonating a desingnating officer and fraud”.
That is not a typo, the officer really does say “desingnating” and does not correct his mistake.
From 14:16 hours to 20:48 hours that night, none of the officers could make up their mind as to the reason for my arrest.
Despite being informed, that I am
Diagnosed Severely Dyslexic.
Suffer from Temporary Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar if I don’t eat)
Diagnosed with severe Obstructive sleep apnoea (I stop breathing up to 60 times an hour when sleeping). This results in Hypersomnia during the day.
As well as other physical spine/wrist injury related disabilities.
- No appointed person was brought in, although I could barely read what was being presented to me.
- I was kept the entire time, with no food or water (Although I had already made clear that I had not eaten that day and my health would deteriorate quickly).
- To be precise I was given water. It was warm, from a hot tap, it stank of Copper (no pun intended) and chemical water softener. I could only wet my lips with it, as consuming it would have risked kidney failure.
When I challenged about this, they sent the Medical officer down to measure my blood sugar. With Hypoglycemia you are supposed to consume a sugary drink etc, ‘then’ test your blood sugar levels later.
They offered nothing but a blood sugar test, in unsanitary conditions. so I refused.
I said “I need food”, “not needles”.
About an hour later they sent in a Psychiatrist and a Psychiatric Nurse, because I was acting ‘oddly’. Which is an any advocate knows, all they need to commit you under the Mental Health Act.
Of course I was acting oddly, I had not had any food, I was in absolute agony with my spine and my stomach was on fire.
In case you are not familiar with the effects of Gastritis, imagine being gutted by a blunt serrated edge hunting knife and you will be at about 10% of the pain. It really is agonising.
This combined with Hypersomnia (Day time sleep apnea events), was actually making me quite scared. As I was getting more and more exhausted by the minute, but if accidentally lay down in my sleep, I risked the Acid bile refluxing into my oesophagus whilst in a sleep apnea event.
(Basically suffocating to death).
By about 19:00 hours that evening, I was genuinely fearing that the only way I was going to leave that cell was in a body bag (If this had continued just 3 more hours that was a serious risk of being the outcome).
When the officers finally arrived, I just shouted at them (tearfully), either charge me or let me go, I can’t wait around for a duty solicitor, I am in absolute agony, this is nothing short of torture.
They just laughed!
Then went off to confirm I would not have a duty solicitor.
Thus came the questioning or should I say they thought I would be questioned then.
Apparently the Duty Solicitor was not happy with this and insisted upon speaking to me.
I made it known to her that I had not eaten at all that day, and some of my health problems.
Which wasn’t easy, as by this point I was in a Hypersomnia, Hypoglycemia fog, which makes it extremely hard to think.
Actually it’s such a serious condition, that if you have more than 30 sleep apnea events an hour, You are required to Notify the DVLA often surrendering your license to drive. Until you meet the requirements of treatment.
On the date in question I was untreated.
Just before the Duty Solicitor left (as she had to see another client in the questioning room, next door). She informed the officers of my medical conditions.
When it came to sleep apnea, the officers reply was literally unbelievable.
“Well if he goes to nod off, I will nudge him awake”.
Let me reiterate, at this point I had had no food or water for over 12 hours since I got up that morning (Actually I had nothing since the previous night). I was slipping in and out of Hypersomnia/Sleep Apnea events, which involve stopping breathing and blood oxygen levels dropping to dangerous levels, and this officers response was.
He “Will nudge me awake”.
In case you do not know, suddenly waking up somebody with critically low blood oxygen levels can cause a heart attack and events leading to a Stroke etc.
Basically, for the sake of facilitating my clients reporting Reading Borough, I was arrested on trumped up charges and Tortured, in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.
“Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.“
Despite being severely dyslexic, no appointed person was brought in.
Then charging me on the basis of ‘hearsay’ presented by a inspector on behalf of an SDO.
I have been charged with
“Impersonate a designated National Crime Agency officer (recordable), H10981, CC13006, 194/62/”
The above is not what was stated to me, I only knew this when I got back and had the charge sheet read to me.
This is despite presenting myself both verbally and via photo identification ‘clearly’ as an Officer of the New Cyber Army (NCA) an organisation that has existed since 1989, some 24 years prior to the National Crime Agency (N.C.A) coming in to existence.
As the video shows, even before arrest, I was still presenting as General William Taggart of the N.C.A “New Cyber Army”.
The National Crime Agency does not have Generals!
On another note: Mr Chris Brooks keeps trying to present my client and his family as of limited education. So to resolve this once and for all my client had given me this photo and full permission has been obtained from those pictured.
As you can see, that is quite far from being of limited education, in fact in 1996 my clients mother Dr Albertine Mathurin Jurgensen was awarded an M.B.E by her Majesty for Public Service.
I am aware of the spelling mistakes (Hopefully all corrected now)
So on the 21st September 2017, Reading Magistrates Courts at 09:15 hrs. I am to attend to face the charge of “impersonate a designated National Crime Agency Officer”. Even though I have never done any such thing in my life, in fact we at the New Cyber Army, Consider them to be the lesser organisation, which in many cases limit the very Human Rights that we try to protect.
A link to this Article has been supplied to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Somebody does not want this shared, I have been locked out of my twitter account by twitter, an account which has existed since the early days of that company.
So Please click the button to share!
Update: The response from the Crown Prosecution Service concerning wrongful arrest, torture in breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act/ European Convention on Human Rights, trumped up charge.
Dear Mr Taggart
Your e mail of 1 September is acknowledged.
In accordance with page 6 of the CPS Complaints and Feedback Policy, as you are a defendant in an ongoing case, the Complaints policy does not apply, however your e mail has been placed with the case papers so that the information can be seen by the lawyer in the case in due course.
We have also noted that you have already lodged a complaint with the police with regard to your treatment at the police station.
We enclose a copy of the CPS Complaints and Feedback Policy for your information.
Thames and Chiltern Complaint Co Ordinator
Basically they directed it to the wrong department, now they are passing the buck. As for the complaints before the Police. The informal complaint over the SDO, ‘no further response’ from the Inspector,
The Formal complaint in respect of wrongful arrest, torture in breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act/ European Convention on Human Rights, trumped up charge as well as the use of excessive force upon my client and searching his documents without a warrant. ‘No further response’. From the Chief Inspector.
It seems nobody wants to respond on this case. I wonder why?
I am asking that those of you who can, to Come to Reading Magistrates Courts, Civic Centre, Castle St, Reading RG1 7TQ at 9:15am on Thursday 21st September 2017. To Peacefully show support for a fellow DPAC’er and Solidarity against this Injustice.