Menu Contact
UK Coat of Arms

Lowestoft Police Vendetta

The Experiences of an Old Man with the Lowestoft Police

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The latest up to date version of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is available from the government's web site. The first section of the statute is copied here, and gives a good overview of the law:

  1. Prohibition of harassment.
    1. A person must not pursue a course of conduct―
      1. which amounts to harassment of another, and
      2. which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
    2. For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
    3. Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows―
      1. that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
      2. that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
      3. that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Are My Actions Contrary To The Protection From Harassment Act ?

The Lowestoft Police have threatened to arrest, charge, prosecute and imprison me for violation of the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA1997). But have I actually broken the law as it exists today?

Firstly, are my actions harassing? Is it reasonable to accept that the largest law firm in the region is put in fear by one frail old man publishing the truth on the Internet? Or, is their “fear” fabricated for the sole purpose of concealing what they have done? Is their motive solely to prevent their potential future victims being warned in time to save themselves from a similar fate? And, as for the other perpetrators, the “Gang of Twenty”, how does publication of their crimes cause them fear? I can understand that they would not want their crimes and brutal behavior to become widely known; it would perhaps be embarrassing. But I cannot see how it would induce any legitimate fear.

Secondly, I have a lawful excuse: My actions are pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. Numerous crimes have been committed by the perpetrators. A sample of these crimes are:

  • Theft
  • Burglary
  • Armed Robbery
  • Assault With A Deadly Weapon (ADW)
  • Fraud
  • Perjury
  • Perversion Of Justice
  • Criminal Damage
  • Possession Of Stolen Property
  • Handling Stolen Property
My motives are to collect evidence of these crimes for intended private criminal prosecution, and to recover the stolen property that rightfully belongs to me. In the context of criminal justice the act of collecting evidence is called “detecting”. I also seek to prevent the ongoing crime of possession of stolen property. I also seek to warn potential future victims so that they may be spared a similar fate to that which was inflicted on me. This also is preventing crime.

Thirdly, another lawful excuse to harassment is when a course of conduct is “pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment”. I am an executor of my father's estate. I have a grant of probate from the court which places upon me the duty to collect the estate assets and deliver them to the intended beneficiaries. In other words the probate court has required me to recover the stolen assets of my father's estate. I am acting as an officer of the court, under the orders of the court.

Lastly, a lawful excuse is: “in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable”. Well I certainly believe that my actions are reasonable. These bullies threw me out of my home, they destroyed almost everything that mattered to me in this world. They even destroyed all my photographs of my childhood and my parents. They taunted me as I screamed in agony, saying that I was having a temper tantrum, when in fact every system in my brain was overloaded with the pain they were causing me. They told me my possessions had been taken to the council tip, causing me to spend weeks up to my knees in garbage desperately searching for my photographs, but to no avail. They have sold my childhood toys keeping the proceeds for themselves. They have stolen my mother's diamond engagement ring, and jewelry handed down from my grandmother. They have destroyed all our families letters, audio recordings, artwork and precious family heirlooms. They did so much damage to my home that it had to be demolished. Every single day for the last 11 years I have cried until I vomited. And what did I do to them: I published a truthful factual account of what they had done to me, and what they continue to do to this day. So, I ask my readers to decide for yourselves if my course of conduct is unreasonable.

Am I The Victim Of Harassment ?

Parce que le crayon sera toujours au dessus de la barbarie…

Charlie Hebdo

Was I harassed? I present samples of the courses of action that others directed against me. Perhaps dear reader you could imagine how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of this campaign. Would you feel harassed? Would you feel fear?

Here is a sample of what the “Gang of Twenty” did to me:

  • Destroyed the yew tree tunnel that was a feature of my home.
  • Cut and destroyed the wysteria that grew over the front of my house.
  • Drilled holes gratuitously in the wooden window frames of my house.
  • Drilled holes in the brick work walls of my house.
  • Hired electricians to perform rewiring using conduit pipes outside the walls when there was no problem with the existing wiring. Having the electrician bill me for this work.
  • Urinated and defecated throughout my home, and on my possessions.
  • Hired a locksmith to drill my locks to break into my home. Having the locksmith bill me for this work.
  • Threatened me with a German Shepherd dog in my own home, causing it to bare its teeth and bark and growl aggressively.
  • Tell me that they were guarding my home against burglars, while they were in fact stealing my most treasured possessions, and then destroying them, keeping them for themselves, or selling them and keeping the proceeds for themselves.
  • Claiming that their actions were done as a “Labour of Love” because they loved me so much and they loved my father so much. They continued this ridiculous pretense even after I had issued court proceedings to try to get them removed from my home.
  • Threatened me with physical violence by multiple simultaneous assailants in my own home.
  • Changed the locks on my house, installed a chain and padlock on my front gate and built a barricade in the side passage of my house to prevent me entering my own home.
  • Moved into my house and lived there against my wishes for several years

Here is a sample of what the largest law firm in town did to me:

  • Defied my father's instructions when writing his Will.
  • Wrote my father's Will in such a manner as to allow them to ignore his written instructions and do what they wanted with his estate.
  • Entered my home against my clearly stated wishes, and hired others to do the same.
  • Destroyed my personal possessions that were not part of my father's estate.
  • Aided and abetted the “Gang of Twenty”, and engaged in conspiracy with the “Gang of Twenty”, to destroy, retain for their own use, or sell and retain the proceeds of my personal property not part of my father's estate.
  • Embezzled money from my father's estate.
  • Committed Tax Fraud resulting in approximately £300,000. of unnecessary tax being paid by the estate.
  • Aided and abetted the “Gang of Twenty” to commit burglary by breaking and entering my home, and stealing my possessions from my home, after my house had been registered in my name as the sole proprietor at HM Land Registry.
  • Told Howards Estate Agents to ignore my instructions and to sell my house because I was not an executor. They knew that not only was I an executor of my father's estate, but that the house was registered in my sole name. Thus it was not part of my father's estate. Thus they knowingly lied to Howards Estate Agents in an attempt to gain and retain control over my house.

Here is a sample of the course of action used by the police against me:

  • Hauled me out of bed at 3am and arrested me
  • Thoroughly searched my room, under the mattress, turned out all drawers
  • Arrested me many times
  • Searched my luggage
  • Threatened to place an “All Ports Watch” on me
  • Arrested me at Heathrow Airport on arrival on an international flight for an allegation of crimes committed in the UK while I was out of the country.
  • Pretended to believe members of the “Gang of Twenty” when they claimed to be acting out of love for me, with my consent, whilst simultaneously arresting me when the “Gang of Twenty” alleged that I was using unlawful violent methods to stop them. This is dumb insolence by the police.
  • Pretending to believe that criminal damage committed by the “Gang of Twenty” was for my benefit, when such a claim was obviously ridiculous. Again, dumb insolence by the police.
  • Remanded me in prison for acts they knew I was not guilty of. This is perversion of justice by the police. Since multiple police officers collaborated in this crime it is also conspiracy to pervert justice.
  • Threatened to cause me more pain, even after they knew the pain they had already caused me had made me suicidal.
  • Threatened to do more damage to me, my property and my life.

The police do not have a lawful excuse for their course of action. Their only defence would be the detection or prevention of crime. Since the police know that my actions do not constitute crimes they know that they do not have the lawful authority to harass me. Their knowledge proves the Mens Rea component. Thus the individual police officers engaging in the harassing actions are guilty of the criminal offence of harassment. They are also liable under the civil tort.

Is the Suffolk Constabulary as an institutional body viciously liable for the actions of individual police officers? An authority for this is a ruling by the House of Lords: Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34. This ruled that employers are indeed liable under civil tort for anxiety and financial loss resulting from harassment carried out by their employees.

Is the Chief Constable of Suffolk, Mr. Douglas Paxton, vicariously liable for harassing me? Yes he is. An authority is the Police Act 1996 § 88. The relevant text is: “The chief officer of police for a police area shall be liable in respect of any unlawful conduct of constables under his direction and control in the performance or purported performance of their functions in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and accordingly shall, in the case of a tort, be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor”. Another authority is: Waters (A.P.) v. Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis. That case involved the rape and buggery of a female police officer by a male police officer occurring in police residential accommodation.

Is the individual person currently holding the position of Chief Constable of Suffolk, Mr. Douglas Paxton, guilty of a criminal offence? Yes he is. This may surprise some of my readers as it is a general principle that the vicarious liability of a Chief Constable extends only to civil liability and not to criminal liability. However, harassment is a special case. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 now contains a clause making it a criminal offence to engage the services of another to carry out the harassing actions. Both the person carrying out the actions, and the person that encouraged them to do so, are equally guilty. The role of the employer is now elevated to that of a primary offender. The relevant section of the statute is copied here:

  • 7 …

  • (3A)A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another―
    1. to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and
    2. to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.

For avoidance of doubt: Mr. Douglas Paxton is guilty of a criminal offence under the The Protection from Harassment Act, as a primary offender, not as a result of vicarious liability.

Click Here For Evidence (Title Deed showing that I have absolute title to my house, and thus the offenders committed burglary when they entered my house against my wishes and stole my property)

Should Publishing The Truth Ever Be Criminalized ?

La liberté est un droit d'expression

Charlie Hebdo

If a victim publishes a truthful, factual account of injuries inflicted upon them by another, should that be prosecuted as harassment? In my opinion the truth is pure, it should not be considered a crime to tell the truth. But what if the truth is “derogatory”? What if the truth embarrasses the perpetrator? What if the truth damages the reputation of the perpetrator? Then the remedy available to the perpetrator is not to do the evil deed in the first place. If someone is contemplating doing evil then perhaps the possibility that their misdeeds will be published will discourage them from carrying out their evil plans. But if they can be confident that their powerful friends and allies will intimidate the victims into silence then they will be emboldened to carry out their atrocities.

If my readers agree with my opinion then perhaps you could lobby your Members of Parliament to change the law. Ask your MP to make truth a lawful defense to harassment. Tell your MPs that you do not want corrupt public officials, incompetent professionals, crooks, thieves, fraudsters, child molesters and dishonest police officers to be given carte blanche to seek out and destroy the lives of yet more victims because their previous victims were too afraid to speak out and warn others.

Who Has Legal Title To Stolen Goods That Are Bought Innocently ?

If a law abiding member of the public goes to Durrants Auction Rooms in the mistaken belief that Durrants are a legitimate business, and buys stolen property at a public auction held by Durrants, are they now the rightful owner of the stolen property that they bought at Durrants? Well no they are not. The legal title to stolen goods remains with the original lawful owner. Even if a buyer buys the goods in good faith they do not lawfully possess the stolen goods. Until 1995 there was an exception to this rule. If a buyer bought the goods in what was known as a “market overt” then they would become the lawful owner of the property. Durrants would have been considered a “market overt”. However, an act passed in November 1994 changed this law: The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994 abolished the “market overt” with effect from 1995. It is now no longer safe to purchase stolen goods from Durrants. Nowadays the lawful title to stolen goods will always remain with the original rightful owner. If somebody innocently purchases stolen goods are they guilty of a crime? Well, initially no. However, as soon as they become aware that the goods are stolen they must return the goods to the rightful owner. If they are unable to locate the rightful owner, then they must return the stolen property to the police. Failure to do so will constitute the crime of Handling Stolen Goods. The authority for this is the Theft Act 1968 s22. The maximum sentence on conviction is 14 years in prison. The buyer is not entitled to any payment from the original rightful owner. They do however have a legal claim against the fence that sold them the stolen property. They may issue court proceedings against Durrants to recover the purchase price they paid for the stolen property. The authority for this is the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s12. If you are a dealer who has bought stolen goods from Durrants with the intention of reselling the items as part of your business then understand that the eventual buyer will have a cause of action to sue you for the full purchase price. If you have reasonable grounds to believe that the property is stolen, but yet you sell it on anyway, you could face 14 years in prison.

My only agenda is to recover what is mine. I don't want to punish anybody who has innocently bought stolen property from Durrants. If you think that you might have my treasured possessions then please contact me. If they are mine I will make you a cash offer to buy them back from you, even though in law you are not entitled to any financial compensation. However, be advised that if these items are recovered from you by force as a result of an investigation then you will receive no payment, and may well face criminal prosecution.

Contact the Author of This Site

I welcome any feedback on this website. Just click on the feedback icon below to send your message.