When trainspotter Stephen White noticed some interesting engines, he wasted no time in taking pictures of them for his collection.You see, not only did Stephen take a picture of some trains at Milford Haven Oil Refinery (this fact probably has some bearing on the situation), but when the police - having been alerted by the oil refinery staff, who caught this on CCTV - asked to see his pictures, he and his wife refused.
It was the start of a bizarre sequence of events involving midnight phone calls, police raids and even, it is claimed, suspected terrorism.
Miss White's car number plate was also noted and police traced it to her home in Lincolnshire, where a neighbour gave them her mobile phone number.I don't blame her a bit.
An officer then phoned her in the early hours, waking her daughter Jessica, 11, and six-year-old son Bryn, and demanded she take the photos to a police station despite her innocent explanation.
Not wishing to interrupt the family holiday, Miss White, a 41-year-old civil servant, refused.
But rather than assume they were telling the truth, the police decided some harassment would ensure compliance:
Police swooped on the campsite the next day, and again demanded to take the photos.Now, if the police had any right to take the pictures, they would have. And they must have realised by now that not only was this no terrorist scouting for sites to blow up (I'd imagine MI5 just laughed and put the phone down, if they ever even bothered to seek advice) but their efforts to get their hands on the pictures (Why? By now, there was no good reason for this stubbornness) were actually making things worse. For themselves.
But Mr White and his sister say they were so annoyed with the officers for not believing that they were not terrorists and for harassing them that they refused to hand over the snaps.
The next day, they say, their car was pulled over by a police officer with his blue lights flashing. Again, he demanded the camera and pictures, but the family stood their ground.
Mr White, from Yatton, Somerset, said: 'I suppose the police tracked us down from the registration plate on Helen's car and then it went from there. Their reaction is totally over the top.And the police's account of themselves?
'The police officers from Dyfed Powys who came to our campsite were very heavy-handed and were threatening to send Special Branch round to see us and the house. They wanted to know what I'd been doing and I tried to explain I was just a trainspotter and wasn't some sort of Al Qaeda terrorist.
'It's just an innocent photo - which you could find on Google Earth anyway. I've put a complaint in to the police already but they still won't let it rest.'
A spokesman for Dyfed Powys Police confirmed that officers 'sought an explanation from Mr White regarding his activities following a report of suspicious behaviour at an oil refinery site in West Wales.Riiiiight....
'Following an explanation from him, no further action was taken.'
And remember, this wasn't a case of a single cop deciding to be a complete arse. This must have been a whole bunch of 'em! And all because the people involved knew their rights, and decided to stand up for themselves.
Do you feel safer know that the police behave this way even when the law isn't on their side? I know I don't.
With Labours' boasts crime is falling, they need something to do, surely?
ReplyDeleteRecommended reading: Living in a Fascist Country by Vernon Coleman, will explain all this!
ReplyDeleteSuch UK police behaviour is acceptable as a result of no fierce opposition to it - outside of a few raised dorsal hairs.
ReplyDeleteYour own indignation is sufficiently transient for us to find you flirting on the police blogs in the next moment....you capricious madam.
"With Labours' boasts crime is falling, they need something to do, surely?"
ReplyDeleteIs that including the crimes comitted BY the police, though?
"Living in a Fascist Country by Vernon Coleman, will explain all this!"
It's getting that way, isn't it?
"Your own indignation is sufficiently transient for us to find you flirting on the police blogs in the next moment....you capricious madam."
I like to spread my favours widely... ;)
Oh, actually, I've no downer on the police - until they step out of line, as they did here.
Too often, they do a thankless job with one or sometimes both hands tied behind their backs.
I should like, briefly, to celebrate Mrs White.
ReplyDeleteWomen are more likely to assume that "authority" must be in the right, and her position as a civil servant of some sort would usually tend to make her more conformist.
A lass after your own heart, Julia.
"Women are more likely to assume that "authority" must be in the right, and her position as a civil servant of some sort would usually tend to make her more conformist."
ReplyDeleteThey woke up her kids in the early hours of the morning.
That, right there, sealed their fate, I suspect... ;)
OMG Melvin has she been putting it about again? Capricious yes, but also mildy exciting.
ReplyDeleteJulia, fess up young lady, you know you can tell us, What we realy want to know is what happens if a man gets Viagra in his eye?
I suppose it's reassuring to see that the police are still capable of a bit of good old fashioned policing in tracking people down.
ReplyDeleteOne only wonders why they only do this with entirely spurious cases, rather than that lunatic with the funny surname who wandered around freely for a year and then murdered somebody.
Mark, its simple the police like any other person at work generally takes the easiest route through the day. Bothering generally considered innocents, or at the very least people who pose no threat to society is probably the default that most police officers find when attempting to pad out until the end of shift.
ReplyDeleteWhile dossing in the stock room is common place and tantamount to exactly the same behaviour as said police officers the only real difference is that these inappropriate actions of the police have significant and measurable negative consequences. Police officers also routinely and wrongly assume some special status in respect of their actions and the application of law.
On a separate note...Julia have you got something to tell us......
The Viagra question being moderately uncalled for is answered thus:
ReplyDeleteHe looks hard.
It's the heavy-handedness which is the worst of it. If they'd just explained that it was classified, well that's another issue.
ReplyDeleteMiss your droogs await. Have you, as the Dr suggests been giddy with men in uniform?
ReplyDelete"One only wonders why they only do this with entirely spurious cases, rather than that lunatic with the funny surname who wandered around freely for a year and then murdered somebody."
ReplyDeleteIndeed...
"...the only real difference is that these inappropriate actions of the police have significant and measurable negative consequences."
Yes, though that's very unlikely to bother the top brass who condone these things.
Their futures are still secure even under Call-Me-Dave, I've no doubt.
"It's the heavy-handedness which is the worst of it. "
And which has now left two law abiding adults with a very different view of the police than they probably had before. Who's the winner here?
"Have you, as the Dr suggests been giddy with men in uniform?"
Heh! Only in cyberspace.. ;)
Oh, you little tart ;o)
ReplyDeleteJulia, seriously for a mo I would appreciate your opinion on something privately.
ReplyDeleteCould you set up a gmail account for me to send a mail to.
Could lead to your blog's first big mention in MSM!!!
"Could you set up a gmail account for me to send a mail to."
ReplyDeleteNo, sorry. I decided 'no email correspondence' when I set up this blog.
K
ReplyDelete:O(
fcuk it then.... 'I am not afraid'
ReplyDeleteLast year I was found not guilty of rape. My accuser was shown to have lied in her statements and court by the evidence of independent witnesses and physical evidence. We had had sex and it was consensual.
The magistrate that is now seeking permission from the courts to sue his allegedly false accuser has introduced me to his firm of solicitors. They have agreed to act for me pro bono.
My issue has and probably will always be that nothing can ever undo the damage that has been done. I have never felt anger towards my accuser. Confusion, despair, fear, shame... these are the emotions of a man wrongly accused of this crime.
It seems right that my accuser is held account for her actions and for me not to pursue this action is as bad as a woman not reporting a real rape. A good friend of mine who propped me up as I left court in bits said 'that my dignity had been raped'
So, this has nothing to do with the post but I ask you all, please give some thought to the individual human cost of a man falsely accused of rape.
"...for me not to pursue this action is as bad as a woman not reporting a real rape."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. False accusation doesn't get the publicity (or attract the penalty for the accuser) that it deserves.
I wish you well in your legal fight.
I am The Steve White in the story.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail did get the basic facts correct but since they published the story on line, a lot has been , shall we say, mixed up or indeed made up.
I am NOT married to my sister for a start!
I never refused to show plod the pictures, I repeatedly asked them if I had broken the law, which of course I had not and thery refused to answer.
The two officers that raided the camp site didnt even leave with my full details, and dont forget, at that stage I was a terror suspect! They were offered to see the pictures but declined, they also declined a cup of tea. See how friendly we were?!
We were stopped on the road side the next day (no blue flashing lights, he flashed his headlights and his indicators at us!)
My first words were, I want to make an Official complaint...and the copper called for back up, then cancelled it as there was no back up anywhere near the area....
We contacted their HQ from the roadside and we have been waiting for a call back from a senior officer at Dyfed powis police since, we are still waiting.....
Steve
Me miss, please, - with the proviso that this cannot be taken as legal advice. It's more 'round the block PR nose' as something doesn't smell right here.
ReplyDeleteThere are some questions which Mike needs to ask. My unqualified remark is: Do not agree to anything until you have understood the following points and got some satisfactory answers.
First Mike needs to understand the difference between him persuing a civil case - which is what it sounds like as he is being offered a solicitor - and a criminal case. Check this first.
Go back to your solicitor, Mike, and ask exactly what kind of action they are proposing to take. Do they suggest you sue the complainant for damages, are they thinking of a defamation case, or are they recommending the unsusual step of a private criminal prosecution? (That would mean the CPS being forced to take over the case at some point). It's nice they've offered to act pro bono, but also very unusual. Is this really what has happened, or are they acting on a contingency basis where you perhaps buy a small insurance policy first, then the lawyer takes their fee out of any compensation you may get? This is also known as 'no win no fee'.
What bothers me also is that magistrates would not normally get involved this way. Why is the magistrate seeking permission to sue anybody? If there was perjury, that's a criminal matter for the police and the CPS. (Perjury is a crime against the Crown rather than the poor old defendant). The magistrate might be pushing for it, but if so, why? What is the magistrate's angle? Why has s/he introduced this particular solicitor - is there an undisclosed connection between the firm and the magistrate?
Mike needs to answer these questions first as his case is not without risk to himself. A civil case (if that's what it is) is established on the balance of probabilities. If he were to lose the civil case it could theoretically re-open the criminal case against him as we don't have double jeopardy now.
Mike should also check if the solicitors are proposing to act against the accuser or the police and CPS. The old rule is still true: no point in suing shallow pockets; I'd be going after the police and CPS as they've both got some money to pay out. The police are regularly obliged to pay out for wrongful arrest when they allow matters to escalate on false grounds.
Sorry to jump in like this, but a constant theme of mine is that much legal advice is strong on law but weak on the real effect on clients' lives. It's all very well for Perry Mason wannabes to strut about with their thumbs in their braces, but it's the client who has to live with the process and its outcome, and they are often not given the information they need.
If it was me, I'd certainly want to know why the CPS are not willing to push for some criminal charges - perverting the course of justice if she lied in order to use the process vindictively, or perjury if she repeated those lies under oath - but my immediate worry would be the police having my DNA and the existence of disclosable records which could effectively bar one from care work, work with children or volunteering despite the charges being dismissed. I'd be looking to have any CRB records made up to reflect the fact that the charges were baseless and the case dismissed.
However, I don't see any reason why the accuser should be free to repeat lies and perhaps put someone else through the same mangle - at huge cost to the public and undermining all genuine victims of rape - so I hope you'll go ahead with an action of some sort.
But then it isn't my neck which is being stuck out for this - it's Mike's neck, not the solicitor's and not the magistrate's.
My god, where were you guys last year?
ReplyDeleteThe action would be civil however the test case of Anthony Hunt's is being decided right now. The grounds would be damages from my accuser for her actions in causing a malicious prosecution.
The local police after my protestations have refused to present the CPS with evidence that I have officially given them over and above the evidence heard in court that she lied. Their attitude is that her crimes if any were a consequence of ill health and as such they are not inclined to investigate. Another point is that they pointed out it is a matter for them to decide weather to investigate giving false evidence as it is the crown who is the victim in that case not me.
I talked of anger before and for a while I was angry with the police. Certainly individual police officers let their own prejudices shine through but most just did their job and processed me. Certainly the decision to charge was taken by the CPS. I lost it once with one officer but his colleague saved us both from making matters worse.
I'll never forget walking out of the dock dizzy and lost, dragged away by a clerk to a side room to be handed a witness expense claim form. Maximum £10 for travel per day and a food allowance of £3.50 a day, I held it tight, focused only on the form, people around me talking to me, speaking, but I couldn't understand what they were saying. I can't explain really how that felt, a few minutes earlier I was standing in the centre of a crown court, fixed on a man reading out the verdict of a six day trail for rape...........
You guys really don't know me from Adam but I have felt more openness and been at home for the few the short weeks I have been here. Thank you
Julia I don't want to spoil your blog so off I go. Mike is my name, read the papers next year. If I win, smile and wish me luck because I need to travel a bit and find somewhere new
:o)
"I am The Steve White in the story.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail did get the basic facts correct but since they published the story on line, a lot has been , shall we say, mixed up or indeed made up."
Yeah, that's the 'Daily Fail' for you... ;)
"The two officers that raided the camp site didnt even leave with my full details, and dont forget, at that stage I was a terror suspect!"
Good grief!
I wonder if, perhaps, when they reported back (rightly) that they had no rights to take your camera, they were told by senior officers that they should have tried to force the issue, and that's the reason for the stop the next morning?
"We contacted their HQ from the roadside and we have been waiting for a call back from a senior officer at Dyfed powis police since, we are still waiting....."
I'd suspect that, by now, they are hoping this will all blow over, and they can get away with a form letter in a few weeks time.
"with the proviso that this cannot be taken as legal advice. It's more 'round the block PR nose' as something doesn't smell right here."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't, does it? I wonder how often the 'smoothly oiled wheels of justice' slip and grind the innocent, and we never, ever here about it?
Good advice for Mike, though.
"You guys really don't know me from Adam but I have felt more openness and been at home for the few the short weeks I have been here."
That's the blogosphere for you, we're a (mostly) good bunch, despite the meejah stories... :)
Certainly can't blame you for deciding 'that's it, I'm off' when it's all over. The UK ain't what it used to be. Sadly...
The conditional fee arrangement is not 'no win no fee' and yes I have an After The Event insurance policy agreed and underwritten by a venture capitalist but as yet is unsigned because we are waiting to find out if the magistrate, Anthony Hunt' is successful.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I have not and am not proceeding at the moment is because unlike any other case accusers of rape have all sorts of unique protection under law. These laws have been brought in to increase the amount of prosecutions for rape. Things like life long anonymity for the accuser regardless of the accused being guilty or innocent and the outcome of any legal action. That they currently receive protection from being sued even if found out to have lied. The only recourse is that the crown pursues a criminal case of giving false evidence, perjury or wasting police time. Accusers receive compensation even if the accused is found not guilty. All measures put in place to increase the convictions for rape.
Anything that does indeed increase the conviction for rape is a good idea in my book with one proviso, that it cannot be used to encourage false accusations and the cost to the falsely accused of such action.
WOAR, you also mention my action against the authorities. This because there’s no point in suing someone who is broke. I agree but...I don't really care about the money and it is her lies that brought about this malicious prosecution. The authorities bound by cumbersome laws and procedure are a difficult bunch to pin the blame on when someone with the aforementioned protection is prepared to do whatever it takes to make them act. The media who can legally report a man's name, home address and occupation once charges have been brought equally cannot be held to account for the damage that is caused when their front page story of a ‘man who 'raped' me’ woman says’ turns out to be ‘man found not guilty’.
WOAR you seem to think my case was dismissed or thrown out, it is important to me that I was found not guilty. It’s not that, I did it and there was not enough evidence or I avoided prosecution because of a legal technicality. She lied, we ended up in court, she lied again and then a jury heard from independent witnesses that she lied. Some of the evidence they, the independent witnesses, gave I had no idea existed because they were conversations I was not privy to. Physical evidence proved we had sex but the method of rape she decided to present could not have happened, in fact one of the sex acts she described did not take place and medical evidence suggested she lied.
So why did the judge not step in? Throw the case out. Why did the CPS authorise charges? Simply because all it takes is for sex to have occurred and a woman to say it was rape for a trial. It doesn't matter what other evidence there is for the CPS and SOME judges if there is ANY chance of a conviction they will proceed.
On re-opening a criminal case, my accuser has confessed. So you are right they can take me to court again and again and again to try to get the verdict they want for statistics to be what we, the general public want. I however apart from knowing of my innocence I feel confident that I could spend the rest of my life being questioned about this and the only conclusion will ever be not guilty. Had I been found guilty btw knowing I was not would not have been enough to have survived and I'm not being sensationalist about this I am sure I would have taken my own life in prison.
A final note on the database issue. Julia I promise unless directly asked this is the end of me using your blog to bring up my own issues and sad life. On ‘the database’, I am rich, well comfortable whatever that means, I work and although you’re right this database affects me less than most. I have altered it as much as is allowed and have the offer of altering it in ways that are probably not allowed. Regardless, if someone would question employing me based on this issue alone I would not want to work for them.
Dear Mike
ReplyDelete(I've been looking at this while you were writing, so I'll apologise for any misunderstanding of your original post. It was the thing about the magistrate which threw me - will re-read and correct myself.)
Good luck, but always remember it's your neck and in the end has to be your decision. Your team probably know about the February 2000 Garfoot case, but I repeat the ordinary references here - your lawyers may be able to dig up more from the paid-for legal services such as Westlaw or Lexis. Note: Lynn Walker failed to make a criminal complaint, which left it open to Mr Garfoot to treat the whole matter within the civil law.
...
This excellent summary from Overlawyered archives
February 15 – Britons debate false-rape-claim damages. In Newcastle upon Tyne, England, a four-man, eight-woman jury has ordered Lynn Walker to pay $630,000 (£400,000) in damages to co-worker Martin Garfoot, after concluding she had falsely accused him of raping her in a storeroom. Ms. Walker had waited nine months after the supposed incident to raise the claim and had sought neither police nor doctors’ help; video camera records from the days after the claimed attack showed her “at ease and untroubled” as she worked with the accused. Mr. Garfoot, 46, managed a branch of Boots, the drugstore concern; both Ms. Walker and Mr. Garfoot’s wife Janice are pharmacists. Feminist groups expressed outrage, but Mr. Garfoot’s barrister, Edward Garnier, Q.C., said: “She should not be able to simply walk away and hide in her tent after she has been found to be an out-and-out liar. Mr. Garfoot has spent the last few years wearing a cloak of shame. She twisted and twisted and twisted the knife in Mr. Garfoot”.
....
References:
BBC 7 February, 2000
Indepenent 8 Feb 200
Guardian 9 Feb 2000 - includes a classic Julie Bindel quote.More of a discussion, but contains important warnings about the court process.
Pharmaceutical Journal 12 Feb 2000
Pharmaceutical Journal 5 Feb 2000
2 quick points:
1) Get your team to check the Sexual Offences Ammendment Act 1992 sections 1 & 2. It is possible that your accuser is not entitled to further anonymity under that act, although people tend to assume they are. It doesn't look to me as if the Act was updated to take account of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was presumably what the original charge was brought under. However, it is entirely possible that I've mis-read that or there is an update in another act.
2) Mr Garfoot only ever wanted a public apology - which amounts to a retraction - and credible damages, roughly what a good executive car would cost(25k). Had Walker taken that very reasonable offer, the case would only have attracted two lines of report, if that.
WOAR,
ReplyDeletemany thanks for your obviously informed and considered opinion. I would also like to try to put a lid on something that I'm sure Julia's blog and certainly this post was not intended for. If you find anything of interest contact me using
michaelwatkins149@yahoo.co.uk