Menu Contact
UK Coat of Arms

Lowestoft Police Vendetta

The Experiences of an Old Man with the Lowestoft Police


Why does the title of this site include the word “Vendetta”? Well first and foremost because the Lowestoft Police have been conducting a Vendetta against me for over a decade. But the name itself was suggested by a conversation with PC Rose: After an interview in which rigorous evidence was presented that Elizabeth Ann Pike had lied to conceal thefts by her mother Helen Hermione Pike, PC Rose got in my face and said aggressively that Ann Pike would not lie and accused me of conducting a vendetta against the people that had looted my home. It is quite clear that there is a vendetta going on here, but I am the victim of the vendetta.

Tactics Used By The Police Against An Old Man

The Triangle of Police Bias

There is a stark contrast in the way the police treat me and the way the police treat those that have committed heinous crimes against me. This pattern is repeated over and over again in every single interaction between the police and myself. Whenever anyone makes a complaint about me, the police react with great enthusiasm. They adopt a very heavy handed response even when the allegations against me are quite trivial. But when others commit very serious crimes against me the police refuse to act. When I ask the police to explain their quite obvious bias against me they deny that any such bias exists. They construct quite ridiculous excuses to justify their failures to act against my enemies, or to act to help me. I refer to this situation as the “Triangle of Police Bias”.


When I made a criminal complaint to the Lowestoft Police that a member of the “Gang of Twenty” had stolen my TV set, and that it was currently in the front room of his house, the police refused to act. I asked them why they refused to search his house. They said: “we don't search people's houses”. Their statement is so obviously bogus on so many levels! Later that day, in retaliation, the thief made a complaint alleging that I had slashed the tyres of his car. The police reacted with a heavy handed response: They dragged me out of bed at 3am. They thoroughly searched my room. They pulled the mattress off my bed and searched under the mattress, and all the blankets and sheets from the bed. They emptied out and searched the drawers of my furniture. They searched my suitcase. I don't know what tyre slashing would look like if they found it. In any event they did not find any evidence of wrong doing. They told me that they had placed a watch on all airports, sea ports and international train stations to catch me if I tried to leave the country. I am amazed that such heavy duty methods would be appropriate for someone merely accused of damaging four tyres. Indeed, the cost to the tax payer to transport me back to Lowestoft from airports in London, and the cost to me of a wasted airline ticket, would be much greater than the value of four partially used tyres. On other occasions, in response to other allegations, the police actually have arrested me at Heathrow Airport thus confirming that this was not an idle threat. They then transported me to the police station where I spent the night and most of the following day in a holding cell. Why was I treated so differently to the offenders?

It has become painfully obvious that the police use searches not as a source of evidence, but rather as a weapon of harassment and intimidation. Their different treatment of me and the criminals is bias: It is contrary to my Human Rights. It is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Members of the “Gang of Twenty” counterfeited a letter making it appear to have been written by me. They gave this letter to the police, resulting in my arrest. At interview I was not allowed to see this letter. Instead the police officer conducting the interview read the letter out loud to me. From a distance the letter appeared to be typed. The police officer described it as “computer generated”. I was not allowed to retain a copy of this evidence. My recollection of the alleged letter as read by the police officer is that it demanded that my possessions stolen from me by a member of the “Gang of Twenty” be returned to me, combined with the threat that if this was not done I would publish on the Internet an account of what they had done. If this allegation were true it would constitute the crime of blackmail.

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

Charles de Montesquieu

The police told me that the letter would be sent for forensic examination to determine if my fingerprints or DNA were on the paper. Several members of the “Gang of Twenty” had been squatting in my home for two years. They had access to my computer and my paper. When I load paper into my printer I would touch at least the top and bottom sheet. Thus if the “Gang of Twenty” had printed that letter on my printer it was entirely possible that my fingerprints and DNA would be on that fake letter.

I was remanded into prison for 12 weeks while this investigation proceeded. During this time I was told that blackmail carried a potential 14 year sentence. I was locked in a cell in prison facing a potential 14 year sentence for something I had not done. Two members of the “Gang of Twenty” are lawyers. One had previously worked as a magistrates court clerk. They knew exactly which buttons to push to make this happen. The “Gang of Twenty”, with the help of the Lowestoft Police, were determined to break me.

After 12 weeks incarceration the police just lost interest in the case and the court freed me. But for 12 long weeks I was facing losing my job, my new home and what few possessions I had rescued from our family home. Even after release the consequences of bills going unpaid resulted in an adverse effect on my credit score, cancellation of several credit cards, foreclosure proceedings being threatened against my new home and the loss of my job.

There is a considerable volume of dogma that DNA evidence is so reliable that it should be believed without question. The general public are constantly bombarded with so called “scientific evidence” making claims that the probability of an error is infinitesimally small. But, the only thing a DNA test can ever tell us is whether or not two samples came from the same donor. Regardless of the reliability of the tests themselves the overall reliability of the evidence is no greater than the reliability of the weakest link in the chain of custody. If a corrupt cop takes some of the sample obtained from a suspect, and then sprays it on items taken from the crime scene, then of course the DNA tests will indicate a match. DNA evidence is no more reliable than the honesty of the police officer that is trying to get a conviction.

The police use fear to impose their will on me. The police use fear to silence me. The police use fear to protect a criminal enterprise. The use of fear and intimidation in the pursuit of unlawful aims is the very definition of terrorism. The Lowestoft Police are terrorists.

Hostage Taking and Extortion

The Police forcibly took several items from my storage facility. Then the Crown Prosecution Service threatened to destroy these items unless I acquiesced to a restraining order carrying a potential five year prison sentence. The restraining order refereed to behavior that I had never engaged in, and the Police and Crown Prosecution Service knew and accepted that I had never engaged in. They said that they wanted to deter me from engaging in such action in the future even though I had never engaged in such activity in the past. One of the items they took from me by force was a small penknife in a leather pouch. The blade of this knife was less than 2 inches long. It was a souvenir that my parents had bought for me when I was a child as a momento of a family vacation. The actions of the police and Crown Prosecution Service were blatant extortion. The items taken from me were taken as hostages. I agreed to their despicable demand and the restraining order. My readers may be wondering why I would put myself at risk of a 5 year prison sentence to save a small penknife that cost only a few pounds. The reason is that I have so little left from my home, so little to remind me of my parents and childhood, that any item given to me by my parents is of immeasurable value to me.

Evidence, Old and New

One of the excuses often used by the police for refusing to take any action to help me is to claim that there is “no new evidence”. Well, there is lots of evidence. So, if it is not “new” evidence, then it must be “old” evidence. That simply means that the police already have the evidence, but are refusing to act on that evidence. The police were given good evidence in the past. They caused their investigations to fail, either through incompetence or through deliberate willful default. Now they seek to use their previous failure as an excuse to fail again.

I consider the distinction between “old” and “new” evidence to be bogus. The evidence exists, so why not charge the offenders? In any event, why do they put the onus on me to collect evidence, whilst accusing me of harassment for doing so? Surely it is the role of the police to investigate and collect evidence, not a duty placed upon the victim. Indeed, whenever the offenders make spurious complaints about me the police pull out every stop to find evidence. If they fail to find evidence they resort to coercion in an attempt to extort a false confession.

If the police had any bona fide interest in evidence they would search the houses of the offenders. It is known that many of my possessions are even now in the homes of the thieves who looted my home. But yet the police refuse to make these searches. Even when my television set can be clearly seen in the front room of one of the offenders by looking in through the front window, the police refuse to enter the house and recover my television. They do not want to find evidence that would convict the criminals that they protect. The police could obtain a list of buyers of the possessions stolen from my home and fenced through Durrants Auction Rooms in Beccles. The police could easily recover the property from the buyers for use as evidence, and to return my possessions to their rightful owner. But no, once again the police are determined to protect this criminal gang. The manager of the auction rooms, Mr. Miles Lambdin, has a complete list of all the buyers, and the police have the authority to demand a copy. Another manager at Durrants, Mr. Nicholas Rudge, has also confirmed that my property was fenced through Durrants, and that records of the buyers exist. But the owners of Durrants are themselves part of the regional elite, and so the police do not want to embarrass them or to risk scaring away potential future customers from the Auction Rooms. If it became widely known that anyone buying from Durrants Auction Rooms ran a high risk of buying stolen property then customers might think twice before doing business there. And in case any of my readers may think that Durrants Auction Rooms are innocent bystanders in this matter I assure you they are well aware of their role in fencing stolen property. I made it very clear to both Mr. Miles Lambdin and Mr. Nicholas Rudge that the property they were selling was stolen from my home. Their only concern was concealing their involvement in these crimes. They had no compassion whatsoever for me, the victim, as I screamed in agony while my most treasured possessions were sold.

The behaviour of the Police both in obstructing my investigations into the crimes committed against me, and in abusing their powers to intimidate me, amounts to perversion of justice. Since these acts are clearly carried out by many cooperating police officers it forms a conspiracy to pervert justice. This is a common law offence carrying a potential life sentence. But will any police officer, crown prosecutor or judge ever serve time for this conspiracy? Of course not, they live by a totally different set of laws to ordinary citizens.

Case Study: Corgi / Dinky Die-cast Model Cars

Let's look at one piece of evidence: Brian Allan stole a collection of Corgi / Dinky Die-cast model toys from my home and fenced them at Durrants Auction Rooms in Beccles. Prior to stealing them he had examined them and told me that they “would be worth something”. This behaviour is in itself offensive to me; how dare he handle my possessions without asking permission. It is also evidence that he was casing my possessions for items of financial value. Later this collection of toys went missing from my home. There is rigorous evidence that Brian Allan fenced my toys at Durrants Auction Rooms; there is a letter from Nicholas Rudge, a manager at Durrants, to John Loftus, a partner in Norton Peskett Solicitors. In that letter Mr. Rudge states that Brain Allan was the vendor of the toys, and that he kept the proceeds of the sale for himself. Mr. Rudge also states that he gave this information to the Lowestoft Police. The Police interviewed Brian Allan about these toys. Brian Allan stated, under police caution, that the toys he sold at Durrants did not come from my home, but were the childhood toys that he shared with his brother. Brian Allan's brother was conveniently deceased and thus not available to confirm or deny Brian Allan's story. But I can easily prove that Brian Allan lied. When I was young I attended Northfield Primary School in Lowestoft. Every Friday we were encouraged to bring in a favourite toy from home to play with at school. I brought in one of my Corgi model cars. My mother, concerned that it would get lost or stolen, scratched my name on the underside of the car. I told the police which of my toy cars had my name written on it. Why would Brian Allan, or his conveniently deceased brother, have my name written on the bottom of one of their childhood toys? I also provided an itemized list of my toys, and described unique damage to some of them. How could I have know this information about the toys if they were not mine? I ask you, dear reader, where do you think Brian Allan obtained the Corgi / Dinky Die-cast model toys that he fenced at Durrants Auction Rooms? How strong do you consider this evidence? The police claimed that this evidence is worthless. I think they are protecting Brian Allan and other members of the “Gang of Twenty”. If Brian Allan is convicted of these thefts, then other gang members would easily be found guilty of handling stolen property. The trail would quickly lead to elite members of local society. Indeed, I challenge the Lowestoft Police to re-arrest Brian Allan now, interview him under caution, and ask him to itemize the Corgi/Dinky die-cast toys that he sold at Durrants. If the toys he sold truly belonged to Brian Allan and his brother he should have no difficulty listing them, and describing the unique damage to them. Durrants are required by law to keep records of the identities of all auction buyers. Thus the police could easily track down and recover my toys. In addition to returning my toys to me, the rightful owner, the police would then have an itemized list to compare with the list that I provided them. So, Lowestoft Police, why do you refuse to seek this evidence: Are you afraid of what you would discover?

Click Here For Evidence(Letters John Loftus and Nicholas Rudge)

At another time Brian Allan claimed that he was given the items that he stole from my home. Well I have certainly never given Brian Allan any item of my my property. I asked Helen Pike if she had given Brian Allan permission to take my possessions, or to sell them and keep the proceeds for himself. Helen Pike denied giving Brian Allan this permission. Here is an audio recording to confirm this point.

Click Here For Evidence  (Helen Pike denies giving my Marine Engine or my Corgi/Dinky toys to Brian Allan)

Corgi / Dinky Die-cast Model Cars - The Saga Continues …

In October 2015 Brian Allan was interviewed again regarding the Corgi / Dinky toys. This time he was confronted with the fact that one of the toys had my name etched on the bottom. Faced with this incontrovertible evidence he admitted that the toys he fenced at Durrants Auction Rooms were indeed my toys that he took from my home. After 12 long years of lying he was finally forced to tell the truth about the source of the toys he stole from me.

So, you might think, he is caught dead to rights. His crime of stealing my toys is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But no, the story gets even more convoluted now. The police suggested that Brian Allan might have thought that he was entitled to take my childhood toys, sell them, and keep the sale proceeds for himself, thus permanently depriving me of my possessions. It is necessary to prove that he had criminal intent, the Mens Rea, that he knew in his own mind that his actions were wrong. It is necessary to prove what was going on in his mind beyond a reasonable doubt. This is of course an onerous task. But I will prove this.

When interviewed 12 years earlier about the toys, Brian Allan had told DC Lisa Hogan that the toys he fenced at Durrants belonged to himself and his brother. All references to his brother were always made in the singular. You can verify this for yourself by looking at the letters written by John Loftus and Nicholas Rudge. I asked DC Hogan, through Professional Standards, if she had interviewed Brian Allan's brother to verify his story. DC Hogan replied that his brother was deceased. Again, DC Hogan referred to Brian Allan's brother in the singular.

After Brian Allan confessed in October 2015 that the toys he fenced were my toys, I suggested to the Police that by claiming that the toys belonged to both himself and his brother he had lied to conceal the source of the toys. This was proof of Mens Rea: If he had a genuine belief that he was entitled to take my toys then he would not have lied to conceal the source of the toys. By lying to conceal his actions he clearly demonstrated that he knew his actions were wrong. This clearly demonstrates criminal intent.

In yet another bizarre attempt to protect Brian Allan the Police then said that maybe when Brian Allan said that the toys belonged to both himself and his brother he did not mean that the toys were their lifetime possessions. Rather he might have meant that after Brian Allan stole my toys from my home he might have given a half share in the stolen property to his brother. Thus Brian Allan might not have lied about the toys belonging to both himself and his deceased brother. In order to refute this latest absurd defense I tracked down the date of death of Brian Allan's deceased brother. I found that his brother had died before my father died. All parties, even the police and Brian Allan himself, concede that Brian Allan took my toys after my father's death. Thus Brian Allan's brother had died before Brian Allan stole my toys. Thus the toys could never at any time have belonged to Brian Allan's brother. Thus Brian Allan had lied to conceal the source of the toys, and his Mens Rea is proven despite the best efforts of the Lowestoft Police to conceal his crime.

But now the story gets even more convoluted: While tracking down the date of death of Brian Allan's deceased brother I discovered that Brian Allan has a second brother. This other brother is still alive and living in Cheshire. This in no way means that Brian Allan did not lie to conceal the source of the toys. Brain Allan made it very clear to everyone he told his story to that it was his deceased brother with whom he co-owned the toys. He told this story to, inter alia, John Loftus of Norton Peskett Solicitors, Nicholas Rudge of Durrants, and DC Hogan and DC Coulson of the Lowestoft Police. Always Brian Allan claimed that the stolen toys were the property of his deceased brother, not the living brother. In the October 2015 interview Brian Allan stated that he had not involved either of his brothers in the theft of my toys, or in any other activity related to my home. His story changed yet again.

This raises grave concerns about the investigation conducted by DC Lisa Hogan. Did she know about the living brother? If so, why did she conceal this fact from both myself and the Professional Standards investigation? If she did not know of the living brother then how could she have failed to discover this critical fact? Was it incompetence or deliberate corruption? DS Simon Bridgeland also stated on record that the investigation conducted by DC Hogan was “thorough”. It most certainly was not thorough.

As each of Brian Allan's lies is rigorously disproven he admits only as much as he has been caught lying about. His incremental confessions are yet further proof of his dishonest character. To take my most treasured possessions, irreplaceable items from my childhood, and just sell them for money, are the actions of a callous monster.

Click Here For Evidence  (Death Details of Brian Allan's Brother)

Police Refusal to Charge Brian Allan for the Theft of the Corgi/Dinky Toys

The Police have told me that they will not arrest or charge Brian Allan for the theft of the toys. In attempting to justify their decision the police told me that: “Charges can only be made upon the guidance of the Crown Prosecution Service, and they apply strict evidential and public interest tests. Given the passage of time and the background circumstances formal action just cannot be justified”. The police are blaming CPS for the decision, but they have not asked CPS for a charging decision.

The police provided some additional excuses for not charging Brian Allan. The latest collected list is as follows (in their own words):

  1. Passage of time
  2. Background circumstances
  3. Brian Alan can, knowingly or otherwise, exploit a great deal of ambiguity about some of these matters
  4. Did your father give certain items to Brian?
  5. Did Helen Pike give him permission to take items. You know I do not feel she was entitled to give away your possessions but there can be a perceived grey area there in terms of the role of close relatives, beneficiaries and executors etc.
  6. When were certain other items lost? Did Brian take them? Did Haileys lose them or were they stolen from Haileys? Did Hamiltons fail to remove all items from Haileys that were relevant to you?
  7. Did Durrants give an accurate account of claims made by Brian Allan that he and his brother were the owners of certain items?
  8. Were toys or similar items auctioned on more than one occasion and with different explanations as to why?


Neither the passage of time nor advanced age diminishes the guilt of the perpetrators.

Dr. Efraim Zuroff (Nazi Hunter)

I will address each of the excuses put forward by the Police/CPS for not charging Brian Allan using the same numbering scheme:

1. The passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of offenders. Just because a person committed a crime many years ago, and has still not been held accountable, he or she is no less guilty today. Their guilt does not just ooze away with time. In any event I originally reported these crimes soon after they occurred. The delays were caused by the Police/CPS refusing to act. Now the Police/CPS are using their own errors to justify refusing to correct those errors now. Justice delayed is justice denied: It is a further cause of damage to the victim.

Likewise, old age should not afford protection to offenders. Reaching an advanced age does not turn a criminal into a righteous person. They were young enough at the time to do the crime, so they are young enough now to do the time.

The punishment of offenders is in honour of their victims. It is not for the convenience of the offenders. The victim is still in excruciating pain, and will continue to feel that pain every moment until their death. Why should the offenders just get to walk away unscathed leaving damage and pain in their wake.

The ongoing efforts to bring criminals to justice sends a powerful message: That if you commit such heinous crimes, even decades later the search to hold you accountable continues. If so many of those who perpetrate crimes are able to escape punishment this will only make it more likely that subsequent crimes will occur. Indeed, the refusal of the Lowestoft Police to arrest and charge the offenders served to embolden them, resulting in them continuing to loot my father's estate. Thus the willful default exhibited by the police caused much greater losses to my father's estate and my own possessions, and much greater pain to me, than if the police had charged the offenders when their crimes were first reported. In order to deter further crime it must be made as clear as possible that committing such crimes will almost certainly result in swift and severe punishment. Only then will there be a deterrent effect.

2. Background Circumstances: I believe that what the police mean by this is the probate and estate administration. This defence is totally bogus because the Corgi/Dinky toys were never part of my father's estate. Thus the estate administration activities are totally irrelevant to the theft of the toys.

3. Brian Allan can “exploit a great deal of ambiguity about some of these matters”. What ambiguity is that? The case of the theft of the Corgi/Dinky toys is an open and shut case. No ambiguity there to exploit. In any event once the prosecution has made a prima facie case, then a reverse onus takes effect. The defendant has the burden to refute the accusation. So why not charge him and wait to see what defence the offender can come up with. Not just say he might have a defence so let's not charge him just in case he does.

4. There is no way my father would have given my toys to Brian Allan. That would be just so completely contrary to his character. Also, all parties concur that the toys were still in my house at the time of my father's death, and for at least a year thereafter. Clearly my father could not have given anything away after his own death. Also, from a legal perspective, my father did not have lawful title to the toys. I did. Thus my father would have had no standing to give away my possessions.

5. If Helen Pike did give Brian Allan permission to take my possessions, sell them and retain the proceeds for himself, then Brian Allan is no less guilty. Rather Helen Pike is also guilty of criminal activity. She is a co‐conspirator in the theft. She should also be arrested and charged. Brian Allan is well aware that I did not consent to him taking any property from my home. Indeed, he has complained to the police about just how forcefully I told him to leave my possessions alone.

There is a long standing principle in law that obeying an unlawful order is not a defence. Thus even if Helen Pike had the authority to order Brian Allan to commit a crime, he would still be guilty. Of course Helen Pike has no such authority over Brian Allan; she can only incite him to commit a crime, not order him to do so.

For the police to say: “there can be a perceived grey area there in terms of the role of close relatives, beneficiaries and executors etc.” is mind boggling. The roles of beneficiaries and executors are clearly defined by law. There is no ambiguity there. As for suggesting that it is lawful to enter someone else's home and help yourself to their possessions just because you are related: I am shocked that any police officer would say such a thing. It is definitely not lawful to just help yourself to anything you desire from your relatives homes. And in any event Brian Allan is not related to me.

6. The Corgi/Dinky toys represent only a small subset of the property stolen from my home by Brian Allan. However this section is dealing only with the theft of the Corgi/Dinky toys, and so this excuse is irrelevant.

7. Brian Allan's claim that the toys he sold at Durrants Auction Rooms were the property of himself and his brother were documented in writing by:

  • John Loftus, a partner in Norton Peskett Solicitors and the head of that firm's probate department
  • Nicholas Rudge, a director of Durrants
  • DC Coulson, a detective based at the Lowestoft Police Station
All these sources gave identical accounts of Brian Allan's claims.

Many years later when it was demonstrated that the toys sold at Durrants by Brian Allan could not possibly have belonged to Brian Allan or his conveniently deceased brother, Brian Allan admitted that the toys he sold were my toys that he had taken from my home. He was caught dead to rights in his lies, and so then, and only then, did he admit where he got the toys. He made this confession when interviewed in his own home by a Detective Sergeant based at the Lowestoft Police Station. Thus it is demonstrated beyond any doubt that Brian Allan lied to conceal the source of the toys he sold at Durrants Auction Rooms. His lies establish the Mens Rea, the criminal intent. If he had any bona fide belief that his actions were righteous he would not have lied to conceal those actions.

8. The auctioning of other items, on other occasions, with different explanations, is of no relevance to the theft of the Corgi/Dinky toys.

The Full Code Test

The Full Code Test
  • The Evidential Stage
  • The Public Interest Stage

The Crown Prosecution Service claim that they use a standard test to decide whether or not to prosecute a criminal case. They call this “The Full Code Test”. This is the test that the police refer to in their excuses not to charge Brian Allan. It is summarized here from the CPS website.

  • The Evidential Stage

    Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply.

  • The Public Interest Stage

    In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour.

    • The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
    • Culpability is likely to be determined by the suspect's level of involvement; the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned.
    • The circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The greater the vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.
    • In deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.
    • The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. In considering this question, prosecutors should have regard to how community is an inclusive term and is not restricted to communities defined by location.
    • Prosecutors should also consider whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, and in so doing the cost to CPS and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty.

Have the Police/CPS followed their own standards in refusing to charge ?

Well let's apply their own “Full Code Test” and see where it leads us:

Evidential Stage
  • Brian Allan coveted the Corgi/Dinky toys, saying “they will be worth something”.
  • The toys were in my house at the time of my father's death, and for some considerable time thereafter.
  • The toys were discovered to have gone missing.
  • There was no trace of the toys on the “ledger” produced by the executors.
  • Brian Allan sold a set of Corgi/Dinky toys at Durrants Auction Rooms. They matched the model types of my childhood toys.
  • One of the toys sold by Brian Allan at Durrants had my name etched on the bottom.
  • Brian Allan claimed that the toys he sold at Durrants were not taken from my home, but were the childhood toys of Brian Allan and his brother. The fact that Brian Allan made this statement is confirmed in writing by:
    • Nicholas Rudge, a director of Durrants
    • John Loftus, a partner in the law firm Norton Peskett
    • Detective Constable Caulson of the Lowestoft Police
  • Brian Allan's brother was deceased, thus unable to confirm or deny Brian Allan's story.
  • Brian Allan's brother died long before my father died, and long before the toys went missing from my home. Thus the toys could never have belonged to Brian Allan's brother.
  • Brian Allan later admitted that the toys he sold at Durrants were my toys taken from my home.
  • Brian Allan has lied repeatedly over a period of 13 years to conceal the source of the toys.
  • The sale proceeds from selling the toys were paid to Brian Allan.
  • Brian Allan sold other property that he had taken from my home, and retained the sale proceeds for himself.
So, dear reader: If you were presented with this evidence would you be more likely than not to find the defendant guilty? Note that at this stage the standard is not the criminal standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Rather it is the much lower standard of “more likely than not”. Just a little better than 50/50. Do you think that the case passes the evidential stage test and should progress to the Public Interest Stage?
Public Interest Stage

When a testator writes their Will they are deciding what will happen to everything they possess. All their most treasured possessions, everything they have collected over an entire lifetime, all their life's work. Perhaps you could look around you at your own home, look at the items that are most dear to you, the things you worked so hard for, the things that you love. Perhaps you have souvenirs of family vacations decades ago, family photos of your kids growing up, or your parents and grandparents from when they were still alive, love letters from the special someone that you eventually married. Take a good look at these items. And imagine that one day all these things will be taken away from you, leaving you with nothing. Well, it is going to happen to you; that day will come. Even if you are lucky enough to dodge the tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, burglaries that might take your possessions, still the day will come when you die, and on that day you will lose everything.

So, as you survey your dearest possessions, ask yourself this question: What if you could at least decide what will happen to your property. Can your family home be given to your only son to live in? Can all your possessions go to people that will cherish them, and keep them safe, and love them as you did? The law says that you can: You can write a Will that documents your wishes, and you can choose executors that you trust to carry out your wishes. But understand that you are trusting these executors with everything that you hold dear in this world. This is a very sacred trust; for if these executors are dishonest, if they ignore your wishes, there is absolutely nothing that you can do to remedy the situation. By the time the true colours of your executors are known, by the time they are revealed as liars and thieves, you are dead. There is not a damn thing you can do to influence anything is this world.

The executors are not compelled to accept this task. They can refuse. They are under no risk or obligation. But you have trusted them with everything. Because of this profound trust that you must place in these executors is it not in the public interest that they be held to a high standard of honesty? The trust placed in these executors can lead to temptation. Is it therefore in the public interest to put in place deterrents to dishonest behaviour by executors? Such a high degree of trust needs to be enforced with severe consequences for dishonesty. If some executors are allowed to get away with looting an estate that they are sworn to protect then that sends a clear message to others that might become executors telling them that they can get away with anything. Is it in the public interest to tell future executors that a Grant of Probate gives them a licence to steal with impunity?

Is it in the public interest to encourage fraud? When executors steal from the estate they are sworn to protect, and then lie to conceal their thefts, that is fraud. Is it in the public interest to encourage this fraud? When a proving executor, an executor in possession of a Grant of Probate, conceals facts relating to the estate, that is fraud. Is it in the public interest to encourage this fraud? When an executor exploits their trusted position as a proving executor to enable them to steal from the estate that is fraud. Is it in the public interest to encourage this fraud? If the Criminal Justice System turns a blind eye to these types of fraud, sending a clear message that these crimes will not be prosecuted no matter how strong the evidence, then they encourage others to commit these crimes in the future. Is that in the public interest?

And while we are on the subject of public interest: Is it in the public interest to suppress free speech? Is it in the public interest to prosecute me, and send me to prison, for publishing a truthful factual account of what these “executors” have done to me? How can it be a more serious crime to report illegal activity by others than to carry out the illegal activity? Yet clearly the Crown Prosecution Service believe that it is in the public interest to prosecute me for publishing this website. Their decision to prosecute me must have passed the “Full Code Test” or they would not have been able to prosecute me!

The theft of the Corgi/Dinky toys plays out against a backdrop of the mass destruction of almost the entire estate. That crime lasted multiple years. It was premeditated and planned. The following points relate to the big picture, the entirety of the situation, not just the Corgi/Dinky toys:

  • The victim was in a vulnerable position. The offenders were in a position of trust.
  • The views of the victim are that a prosecution must occur. The impact on the victim has been life shattering. The victim thinks about this situation every waking moment. The victim's life revolves around this situation, and the intense pain it has caused.
  • The community affected by this charging decision is everybody who will die one day and thus have to trust their executors. That is a large community.
  • In an open and shut case like this one the costs of prosecution are low, and there is a high probability of conviction.

Model of a Marine Steam Engine

Another item stolen was a model of a marine steam engine made by my grandfather. He made many model steam engines during his lifetime. Upon his death, all but one were lost. My mother fought so hard from her death bed while in agony and dying of cancer to save that one remaining model. 20 years later, this criminal gang stole my engine. It was sold at Durrants Auction Rooms in Beccles in about Autumn 2004 for £540. It was accompanied by a photo of the engine posed with my mother and grandfather. Brian Allan told Durrants Auction Rooms and DC Hogan of the Lowestoft Police that I had consented to him taking that engine. There is no way I would allow even my best friend to have that engine, and certainly not this criminal gang. But DC Hogan claims that she believes his story. On another occasion Brian Allan claimed that Helen Pike had given him my steam engine. In the audio recording above Helen Pike denies giving my engine to Brian Allan.

Regardless of whether Helen Pike gave my engine to Brian Allan, or if he took it on his own, a crime has been committed. The engine was given to me by my mother during her lifetime. It has never at any time belonged to my father, and thus has never been part of my father's estate. No executors of my father's estate had any authority to touch my personal possessions. Even if they mistakenly thought that my marine engine was part of my father's estate, and even if they sold it, the proceeds of the sale must be paid back to the estate. It is a crime for Helen Pike or Brian Allan to retain the proceeds of the sale for themselves. They point the finger at each other: Helen Pike feigns ignorance, while Brian Allan claims that my engine was given to him. Neither is a lawful excuse for their actions. Helen Pike, as an executor, has a duty to account. She swore an executor's oath to this effect. To say that she forgot is not a defense. Brian Allan is well aware that Helen Pike has no authority to give him my engine, and he knows that I would never give it to him under any circumstances. In light of its importance to my mother it is offensive for Brian Allan to even suggest such a thing.

Evidence of the provenance of this model engine consists of a newspaper article describing my grandfather's work, and showing my grandfather posing with the engine. There is also a considerable volume of correspondence between my mother and other parties desperately trying to recover the engine. These documents will be published here on this website in due course.

Antique Plate Camera

Brian Allan has admitted to Nicholas Rudge of Durrants that the plate camera he sold belonged to me. The above letter from Nicholas Rudge confirms this. Brian Allan claimed that the camera he sold was a broken camera in bad condition that had been cannibalized to make a large format photographic enlarger. His story is disproved because the camera that Brian Allan sold at Durrants was sold in their fine arts auction, and not in their general (junk) auction. He also got £90 for it. The camera sold by Brian Allan was accompanied in the same lot by a glass photographic plate containing an image of my Grandmother. This plate comes from a collection that was in the bottom drawer of the dressing table in my bedroom, the same drawer in which my good quality plate camera was stored. Lastly, my good camera was in a case. The camera sold by Brian Allan was described by Durrants as “cased”. The broken camera that Brian Allan claims to have sold did not have a case and would not have fetched anywhere near £90. But even so Brian Allan's defense is bogus: He has no right to take any of my property, even an old broken camera.

Police Reaction to Evidence

The Lowestoft Police try very hard to dismiss evidence against the “Gang of Twenty” when it is presented to them. They bend over backwards to invent implausible scenarios to explain away these documents and audio recordings, desperately trying to find innocent explanations for the criminal behavior of Helen Pike, Brian Allan, and their co-conspirators. Sometimes it seems that the Lowestoft Police have taken on the rôle of defense lawyers for this criminal gang. The Police will never conduct a proper investigation, they refuse to look for evidence that support my accusations of criminal wrong doing by this gang.

In stark contrast, when the “Gang of Twenty” makes false accusations against me, the Lowestoft Police go to great lengths to look for evidence against me. When thy fail to find any evidence against me they resort to coercion. One technique they have used repeatedly is to arrest me, and then say that if I make a false confession they will release me immediately with just a caution, but if I refuse I will be remanded in prison for 3-6 months waiting for a trial. At the substantive trial they will simply offer no evidence and I will be set free, but only after losing 3-6 months of my life, and losing my job, my home and destroying my credit rating. This is extortion: If there were any justice in the United Kingdom it is the police and prosecutors that would be serving prison time for this behavior.

Yet More Hypocrisy from the Suffolk Constabulary

The Lowestoft Journal of 8 January 2015 carried an article in which the Norfolk and Suffolk Constabulary are making a very public display of sympathy with the victims killed in the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. The police, and journalists working for Archant Newspapers, are quoted as “condemning this attack as an attempt to gag press freedom”. But yet the Suffolk Constabulary are threatening to throw an old man in prison, cause that old man further pain and do further damage to that old man, for continuing to publish a truthful factual account of the atrocities inflicted upon him by a criminal enterprise that enjoys the protection of the Lowestoft Police. Hypocrisy!

This kind of doubletalk from the police is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. The police say one thing in public, and then do the exact opposite in private. The Chief Constable and the Crime Commissioner take their double act around the region courting public opinion. And the public lap it up, thinking that the police are honest. Indeed, why do the police need to spend so much time and resources on manipulative advertising? It is ultimately the tax payer's money that is used to mislead and lie to the tax payers.

Appeals and Rewards Offered

I am offering the sum of £5,000 (five thousand pounds) for a complete list of all items sold at Durrants Auction Rooms in Beccles in the period 2003 - 2007. The list must contain the names and addresses for the buyers. A machine readable list is preferred, but print out is acceptable.

I am appealing to anybody who bought any items through Durrants Auction Rooms in Beccles in the period 2003 - 2007 to contact me with a description and photograph of the item(s) bought. If they belong to me I will make a cash offer to buy back these items at a price higher than the price you paid.

Contact the Author of This Site

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