An old man was overwhelmed in his own home for several years by an armed gang that took all of his possessions, destroyed them or sold them keeping the proceeds for themselves, lived in the old man's house for years as if it was their own, then destroyed his house to the point that it had to be demolished. The old man begged the Lowestoft Police to help him, but they told him to go away. Now the Lowestoft Police are sending this old man to prison for publishing his story. The police say that by publishing his story the old man is harassing the criminal gang contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and that is a criminal offence.
The answer to injustice is not to silence the critic, but to end the injustice.
Paul Robeson
Lowestoft, Suffolk, United Kingdom.
I never thought I would ever see anything like this happen in my lifetime. Here I sit in an interview room at Lowestoft Police Station. A British police officer is sitting across the table from me, and he is telling me that if I continue to publish a truthful factual account of the atrocities inflicted on me I will be going to prison. Yes, I will be sentenced to prison for telling the truth, and for no other reason.
I ask this police officer where the line is drawn. What can I publish without fear of imprisonment. His reaction surprises me: He becomes momentarily agitated, he raises his voice just a little, not quite aggressively, but nonetheless he is clearly irritated. He says: “Why would you jeopardize your freedom for this?”. He seems incredulous that anyone would find a prison sentence to be an acceptable price to pay for exposing the atrocities that the Lowestoft Police are so determined to hide. Perhaps he is annoyed that one of the most powerful weapons the police have to use against me is not going to achieve his goals. Or perhaps, as he claims, he really is concerned about my welfare. If the latter he is the only decent police officer I have ever encountered.
This police officer tells me that I cannot win against “officialdom”. He warns me of many capabilites the police have to hurt me. He warns me of the “all ports watch”, and suggests that if I want to travel to or from the United Kingdom, and have a normal life, I must stop publishing. He acknowledges that the police have already caused me considerable damage and pain and warns me that they can and will cause me a great deal more damage and pain. But, if the friendly façade is striped away, what is really going on here is that the police are threatening the victim. They are trying to intimidate the victim into silence for the benefit of a criminal enterprise. Indeed, a criminal enterprise that has enjoyed the protection of the Lowestoft Police for decades.
This police officer tells me within the same conversation, and within the space of a few minutes, that I am doing a lot of damage by publishing, and that I am having very little effect by publishing. On another occasion one of his colleagues also tells me both versions within the same conversation, and within the space of a few minutes. Well Lowestoft Police, which is it? Your two versions are mutually incompatible. They cannot both be true! If a suspect being interviewed could not keep their story straight for a few minutes how would you interpret that? What inference would you make about their credibility? My interpretation is that the Lowestoft Police have no interest in the truth, but will say whatever they think will best suit their agenda at that instant in time.
This police officer tells me that he has some sympathy with my actions, that he “gets it”, that it is injustice. But still he counsels me that I should cease my activities for my own good. But why don't the police do something about the injustice? Why don't the police arrest and charge the offenders instead of causing further harm to the victim? If they really “get it”, if they really understand, then why not try to remedy the injustice?
This police officer tells me that the police behavior is driven by “policies and procedures based on the law”. But, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal set a precedence that has held ever since that following orders is not a defense (Principle IV). To hide behind policies, procedures or the orders of superiors is cowardice. Any honorable police officer presented with evidence of atrocity has a moral duty to help the victim, and not to give support to the offenders. If an honorable police officer observes that the behavior of their employer is hurting the victim, and aiding the thugs and bullies that are torturing that victim, they should not just write it off as the natural behavior of a bureaucracy. Such behavior should never be accepted as merely an unavoidable facet of “officialdom”. If police officers were honorable they would resist this institutionalized corruption. They have a higher duty than the duty dictated by their evil employer. My criticism here is not directed towards the one police officer that talked to me on this occasion, but rather towards all the other remaining police officers who continue to knowingly engage in selective law enforcement, torture, kidnaping and extortion. Following corrupt orders led to the Holocaust and to the Killing Fields of Cambodia, both of which were lawful, and carried out pursuant to policies and procedure based on law.
I am not mentioning the name of the police officer that talked to me on this day because I think he is trying to do some good by warning me of what the police intend to do to me. I do not want to cause any problems for the only remaining decent police officer in the UK. But, I ask him to consider what is written here on this website.
Most of what we do in life is to minimize pain or maximize pleasure. For me the remainder of my life will be at the extreme pain end of the spectrum. But, even for me, in excruciating agony every minute of every day, I still want to minimize the pain that I suffer. The pain that I would suffer from a prison sentence would be intense, but nonetheless, less than the pain I would suffer if I allowed these thugs and bullies to silence me.
Telling my story is the only thing I have left. Every thing else that ever mattered to me in this world is gone. My home is destroyed. All of my possessions are gone; either destroyed, currently in the possession of the criminal gang that stole them or sold with the proceeds retained by the criminals. Even my photographs of my childhood and my parents have been deliberately destroyed. Precious memories lost forever because of the shear spite of these cowardly thugs. The methods used against me have ranged from physical brutality to psychological manipulation. Those people that swore an oath to protect me and my father's estate have betrayed me. The courts have made perverse rulings that defy not only the law of the land, but also defy common sense. Government agencies that exist to handle complaints about the behavior of the police and crown prosecutors have willfully frustrated valid complaints. All that I have left to fight back with is to publish a truthful, factual account of what these thugs and bullies have done to me. Now these thugs are trying to take even that away from me. The police are bullying me to stop me publishing this account.
The biggest impediment to putting an end to government mandated injustice is the lack of awareness by the public of what is really going on. Those unlucky individuals that have fallen victim to the system constitute a minority of the population. The majority tend to demonize this minority, thinking that they must somehow deserve what was done to them. There is also a state of incredulity amongst the majority, refusing to believe that their government could behave with such dishonor and brutality. They are happy to believe that such things happen in North Korea or Syria, countries that have been condemned by western governments. But they just cannot believe that such injustice can happen right here in their own country.
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
As more and more people become aware of what is really going on we will hopefully reach a critical mass, a point at which a sufficiently large proportion of the population realizes the truth about what is happening around them every day. This in turn will result in more publicity of injustice as it occurs. It will result in a Jury Pool that is more skeptical of police and prosecution assertions, and requiring that the burden of proof be met. Thus it would become more difficult for the police and CPS to succeed in getting a conviction by lying to the court and jury. We have already seen a graphic demonstration of this perspective shift in the United States, where there is now widespread enlightenment that the police kill and injure unarmed people without reasonable justification. But still the British people stubbornly hang on to their distorted rose colored perception of their police, courts and government. To counter this, and bring enlightenment to the masses, it is necessary to publish accurate accounts of injustice and corruption whenever and wherever it occurs. Unfortunately the government knows this, and resorts to harsh and brutal methods to keep their sordid secrets from the public. Government censorship is not in the best interests of the nation or the public. No matter how insistent the government becomes that the censorship is in your best interests it is never the case that ignorance is strength.
The founding fathers of the United States realized the need to limit the power of government for the protection of the people. To achieve this they designed a system of government with checks and balances. One of the most important safeguards was the right of free speech. In the United States this sacred right is enshrined in the constitution. Regrettably in the United Kingdom we have only the weak free speech rights given to us by ECHR Article 10. Even this hopelessly inadequate right is rendered moot because the United Kingdom has not ratified Article 13, the right to an effective remedy. Thus there is no way to enforce what few rights we have. These rights are only theoretical.
It has always been the case that truth is a complete defense to defamation. If it is true nothing else matters. Under English law the burden of proving the published material to be true rests with the defendant (guilty until proven innocent). Under United States law the burden of proving the published material to be false rests with the plaintiff (innocent until proven guilty). Even to the civil standard this reverse onus is of critical importance. Proving a case is difficult. The burden is often impossible to meet. So, already the decks are stacked against the whistle blower in the United Kingdom. But, the government is not satisfied with this advantage. They have another Draconian weapon to enforce their censorship. It has now become common practice for the police and Crown Prosecution Service to misuse the Protection from Harassment Act to suppress criticism. By labeling legitimate free speech as harassment the government not only takes away the truth defense, but also elevates the case to a criminal matter. The government can and does send it's critics to prison. For avoidance of doubt: The United Kingdom government routinely imprisons those that speak out against injustice.
Initially many independent crooks attacked me at a time in my life when I was very vulnerable. Each of them had their own quite separate agenda and selfish motives. Each of them exploited separate attack vectors. As time progressed and they found each other, the offenders coalesced into a loosely knit conspiracy. I was the common enemy. They helped each other, lied to cover for each other, and made a sport out of hurting me. The perverted pleasure they gained from causing me intense pain added to the pleasure they derived from their financial and material gains from looting my home.
The attackers fall into two broad categories: Partners and employees of Norton Peskett Solicitors, and the “Gang of Twenty”.
Throughout this website I will use the term “Gang of Twenty” to refer to the collective of perpetrators that were are not associated with either Norton Peskett or the Police. There are approximately 20 such people in this group. Some of those members are described here:
Brian Allan
Towards the end of his life my father had a stroke. As a result he had a series of carers to provide his basic hygiene needs. Brian Allan was one of these carers. He worked for my father for about one month before being replaced. Brian likes to tell a story that he gave up his job with the home care agency because he was earning too much money and could not afford the tax. His story lacks credibility. Indeed, Brian Allan is a pathological liar. He once told me that his son was a police officer who had died in the course of his duty. Brian obviously thought that I would be positively impressed by that; I wasn't impressed, I have no confidence in the police. I asked Brian to elaborate on his story. Brian told me that his son was riding a motor bike while chasing drug dealers in a car, and that he crashed his bike and died. Brian went on the say that every year he attends the National Police Memorial Day service. I did a check of the National Police Officers Roll of Honour. I discovered that the only male police officer with the surname “Allan” to die in the line of duty died in 1893. Thus he could not possibly be Brian Allan's son. Brian's story about his son is yet another of his lies. Brian Allan likes to dress up in fake police uniforms. He often wears a black knitted jumper with shoulder patches in the style worn by police officers. He also owns a German Shephard dog just like the police use. Brian Allan is very proud of his lies, and brags about lying. He told me about a conversation he had with Mr. James Nolloth, a neighbour, in which he told Mr. Nolloth that he was buying my house and would be picking out kitchen units. Brian Allan has certainly lied to me frequently over the years that I have known him.
Brian Allan fraudulently obtained the keys to my home and repeatedly entered my home against my wishes. Brian Allan claimed that he was guarding my home against burglars. At first he said that he was doing this as a favour to me. I clearly told him that I did not want his help. I told him to stay away from my home, and not to touch my possessions. He defied my wishes and continued to enter my home against my wishes. He then demanded that I pay him £10,000 as a fee for turning my lights on and off to convince burglars that my home was occupied. I told him to “Stay The Fuck Away From My House And Leave My Property Alone”. Still he defied my wishes. Indeed if a normal burglar had gotten into my home they would have done far less damage than Brian Allan did. A normal burglar would only have taken items of financial value. They would not have taken items of immense sentimental value such as my childhood toys. They would not have destroyed irreplaceable photos of my childhood and parents. Brian Allan stole far more from me than any other burglar would have done.
Brian Allan still refuses to return items that he took from my home and still has in his possession. He can be in no doubt that I want my property back. I have told him to return my possessions on many occasions and in very clear language. I have filed law suits against him in an attempt to recover my possessions. Thus it is clearly proven that I have demanded that he return my property. He can be in no doubt that I want him to return my possessions that he stole from my home. His claims that he acts as a favour to me and out of love for me are clearly bogus.
Brian Allan continues to be a threat to other vulnerable and elderly victims. He tried to get a job as a warden of a care home with the Lowestoft Church and Town Charity. Luckily one of the officers of that charity recognized him and put a stop to his plans. It is unconscionable that a serial thief should be put in a position of trust over yet more vulnerable and trusting victims.
Brian Allan lives at:
| 2 Peddars Way | |
| Lowestoft | |
| Suffolk | |
| NR32 4TT | |
| Phone: 01502 572738 |
Whenever I can find the strength to read this letter it makes me physically sick to read how these people were behaving in my home. It is also deeply offensive to me to read them bragging of what they did.
Helen Pike is my father's sister. Towards the end of his life my father was making arrangements in anticipation of his death. He tried to make this process as easy as possible for me. He carefully arranged documents and financial instruments so as to be easy to find. He arranged that his sister, Helen Pike, would be a backup executor. He told me “Auntie Helen will help you”. He thought he had done everything possible to make his death as gentle as possible on his son, and everybody else involved.
Helen Pike arranged for all my father's financial records to be taken to her house in Manchester. She had her nephew, Michael Hampson, transport those records in a large van belonging to the family business, Becketts Bakery Engineers. Once she had control of the financial records she refused to co‑operate or allow anybody else to know the location of my father's various accounts. Despite my father's careful planning most of the assets of his estate are lost forever.
It has to be done right.
Helen Pike
Helen Pike has embezzled £320,000 from my father's estate in conspiracy with her daughter, Anne Pike, and others. She has lied under oath in court. She has stolen estate assets, and my personal property, and then lied to conceal her thefts. She puts on a fake offended act when her lies are pointed out to her. She has said to me “how dare you even think such a thing much less say it out” when I confront her with proof that she is lying. She is a pathological liar, she does not even distinguish between truth and lies. She has stated in court that she believes that it is quite acceptable for her to lie to conceal her thefts. There are trial transcripts available as evidence to prove this point.
Helen Hermione Pike is a liar and a thief. She has looted an estate that she swore to protect. She has stolen from her own family. She has lied to conceal her thefts. If you have been re-directed to this web site from St Margaret's Church, Burnage, Manchester, then you will recognize Helen Pike as a former Lay Reader at your church. What hypocrisy! She preaches to others that they should do good deeds in the name of Christ, while committing atrocities in her own life.
How dare you even think such a thing, much less say it out loud.
Helen Pike
Helen Pike was left £70,000 in her late brother's Will. This comprised £50,000 in cash and £20,000 in Tax Paid. This is of course a generous amount. But Helen Pike was not content with this amount. She went to the hospital where her late brother (my father) died and, in conspiracy with her remaining brother, Francis Arnold Hampson, she obtained the keys to my father's house. Together they entered my my father's house and proceeded to loot my family home.
They took all the silver, including a model of a wheelbarrow crafted in silver, cases of silver cutlery, several diamond rings and other expensive jewelry, and a large collection of paintings and ceramic art. They completed these acts of burglary before they even notified me of my father's death. They thought I would not notice these thefts, but of course I noticed right away that these items were missing.
These items are of intense emotional attachment to me, and of course are rightfully my property. But yet they refuse to return these items. They even stole my mother's engagement and wedding rings, and my maternal grandmother's wedding ring. They refuse to return these to me, even thought they are aware of the intense emotional torment that the loss has inflicted upon me.What would your father think if he knew you thought like that ?
Helen Pike
Helen Pike gave away the contents of my house to her family and friends. She invited her friends to tour my house while I was away and help themselves to anything they wanted. She then lied to conceal her thefts. Helen Pike is a pathological liar: She does not see anything wrong with lying, she lies gratuitously. When she is caught in a lie she acts indignant as if the person that has caught her lying is the bad guy, while Helen Pike is quite justified in lying. She uses manipulative language such as “What would your father think if he knew you thought like that” and “How dare you even think such a thing, much less say it out loud”. She repeatedly tried to convince me that I was wrong to doubt her, and by wrong she meant not just mistaken, but evil, ungrateful, a bad person for doubting her. Her techniques are precisely the same as those used by paedophiles to mess with the heads of their victims. Although Helen Pike was temporarily an executor of my father's estate, no executor has the authority to ignore the deceased' Will and give away the estate assets in defiance of the deceased' wishes. In any event much of the property that the offenders stole was my personal property and not part of my father's estate. Helen Pike has never been an executor of my estate, and never will be. In any event I am not yet dead, and so no executor would have authority to act.
Another cowardly technique that Helen Hermione Pike used was to accuse others of stealing property that she herself had stolen. She stole a bookcase from my house, then repeatedly stated that it had been stolen by Durrants Auction Rooms. When Durrants denied taking the bookcase, she insisted that they were lying. Helen Pike made up elaborate stories to support her original lies. She claimed that the bookcase had been damaged by damp conditions, and had rotted. This lie was disproved because there was no damp in the parquet floor or baseboard in the location where the bookcase had stood. Also, books that were taken from the bookcase were in pristine condition. Indeed, a complete set of the works of Dickens from the lower section of my bookcase were sold at Durrants, thus proving that they were in saleable condition, and not rotten. Also, the structure of the bookcase was such that the upper and lower halves were separable and usable independently. Thus even if the bottom half had been damaged from standing on a damp floor (which it was not), the upper half would have been unaffected.
Durrants must have taken your bookcase.
Helen Pike
Helen Hermione Pike was named as an executor in my father's Will. I was also named as an executor. My father intended that I would be the primary executor, but named Helen Pike as a backup. After my father's death Helen Pike committed perjury to obtain a Grant of Probate that excluded me; this enabled her to loot my father's estate in blatant defiance of my father's wishes. While I was temporarily overseas on business Helen Pike invited her family and friends to tour my family home and help themselves to any property they wanted. But she was not satisfied with looting the estate of valuable items; she also deliberately and willfully destroyed precious and irreplaceable family momentos. Even my photographs of my parents, and my childhood, were deliberately destroyed. Helen Pike, in collaboration with her family and friends, embarked on a campaign of taunting me: They would delight in telling me how my most cherished possessions had been taken to a local landfill, all that I had of my late mother and father destroyed and placed in a garbage dump. And then to add insult to injury, Helen Pike abused her position as an executor of the estate to use the financial assets of the estate to pay for these atrocities, to hire local waste removal firms to destroy these precious items. I was the residual beneficiary of the estate: Any money not consumed by Helen Pike would go to me. Thus she forced me to pay the financial costs of the destruction of everything that mattered to me in this world. Whenever I would beg her to leave my property alone, and to stay away from my family home, she would reply with phrases such as: "It has to be done right", and "trust me". She would fake indignation at any suggestion that she should not be trusted, while employing local thugs to physically assault me in my own home with a large German Shepard Dog.
One example that illustrates Helen Pike's Pathological Lying is the case of the Bang & Olufsen colour TV set: This was bought by my father, and was in our home at the time of his death. My father was very proud of his TV set; it was one of the few luxuries that he allowed himself in an otherwise frugal life. Helen Pike gave this TV set away to a local thug, Brian Allan, in payment for his help in looting our family home. When I asked her what had happened to my TV set, she initially said that she had no knowledge of it's existence, and certainly no knowledge of what had happened to it. Later she changed her story claiming that it had been taken by Durrants Auction Rooms. She even wrote a letter, that she was clearly told would be used as evidence in a court of law, in which she told the same story.
I have no idea what happened to your TV set.
Helen Pike
For avoidance of doubt: Helen Pike deliberately and willfully made a false written statement with the full knowledge that it was intended to be used as evidence. This is contempt of court and perjury. She thinks nothing of lying to the court to conceal her thefts. Indeed, when she was caught in this lie she had the audacity to say that she was “less than forthcoming”. She said that her lying was justified because if she had told me the truth that she had stolen my TV set and given it to her friends, then I would have demanded the return of my TV set.
Let's analyze her weasel words: She told a deliberate outright lie to me to conceal her thefts. She well knew that she had no lawful or ethical right to steal from the estate; if she believed that her actions were righteous then she would not have lied to conceal her actions. Her lies are clear evidence of dishonesty in the taking of this property.
The Letter is presented here for you to see for yourself. To zoom in, just right click in the letter image, then select “marquee zoom”.
Now let's listen to another phone conversation with Helen Hermione Pike.
In this conversation, just a few days after the previous conversation,
she admits that her friend, Brian Allan, had told her in April 2005
that I had gone to his house and demanded that he return the
TV set.
Thus she knew in June 2005 that Brian Allan had the TV set in April 2005. But yet, in June 2005 she denies all knowledge of what happened to the TV set. Notice how she wiggles and embellishes as she denies all knowledge of the whereabouts of the TV set. Notice also the long pauses as she considers and calculates what lie to tell next. If Helen Hermione Pike pauses for an extended period the next words out of her mouth will be lies.
At this point in time I issued court proceedings against her friend, Brian Allan, alleging that he had stolen the TV set. After all, Helen Hermione Pike had denied all knowledge of what happened to the TV set. Thus clearly she was denying giving it to her friend Brian Allan.
Everyone has knowledge of their own actions; thus if she says that she does not recall what happened to the TV set, then clearly she is saying that she did not give it to Brian Allan. When she saw that her co-conspirator Brian Allan was being prosecuted for theft, Helen Hermione Pike changed her story yet again. Now she claimed that she gave the TV set to Brian Allan.
Even after Helen Hermione Pike had been caught in these, and many other similar lies, she continued to insist that she should be trusted.
Trust me!
Helen Pike
She continued to act with great indignation at any sugestion that she should no longer be trusted. So, the question I would ask of you, the reader, is this: Would you trust Helen Hermione Pike?
Helen Pike lives at:
| 589 Kingsway | |
| Manchester | |
| M19 1RA |
Anne Pike is a solicitor. She is Helen Pike's daughter. She previously worked as a magistrates court clerk, and is thus very familiar with the workings of the Criminal Justice Industry. Later she worked in the legal department at Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society. Currently she works for the Financial Conduct Authority, a government regulator claiming to police the financial industry. She has conspired with her mother, Helen Pike, to embezzle £320,000 from my father's estate, and to loot the estate of valuable property. She has also stolen an enormous amount of my personal property, and lied repeatedly to conceal her thefts. She has counterfeited documents used as evidence in court proceedings, and lied under oath in a court of law.
Anne Pike works at:
| The Financial Conduct Authority | |
| 25 North Colonnade | |
| Canary Wharf | |
| London | |
| E14 5HS | |
| Phone: 020 7066 8856 | |
| Email: Anne.Pike@fca.org.uk |
We are not liars.
Anne Pike
Notice during this recording Anne Pike says indignantly “We are not liars”. So, who exactly is the “we”. Well “we” refers to Anne Pike and her mother Helen Pike. But Helen Pike has already been proven to be a liar. There is rigorous proof right here on this website that Helen Pike is a liar. Indeed, Helen Pike admitted under oath in a court of Law that she was a liar, although she tried to spin doctor it by using the euphemism that she was “less than forthcoming”. Thus Anne Pike knows that her mother, Helen Pike, is a liar. So when Anne Pike says “We are not liars”, Anne Pike is lying. Thus it is demonstrated that Anne Pike is a liar. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Of course this is by no means the only lie that Anne Pike has told. Anne Pike is a pathological liar just like her mother. Anne Pike has lied over and over and over again. Anne Pike does not even understand that lying is wrong.
Anne Pike is caught in yet another lie in this same phone conversation. At one point she claims that nobody has been in my house, then later in the same phone call she describes entering my home with her mother, Helen Pike, and packing my property. Clearly these two versions are mutually incompatible: They cannot both be true. Anne Pike cannot even keep her story straight for the duration of a phone call. Also Anne Pike also states that Brian Allan took my bookcase to the council tip, whereas Helen Pike claims that Durrants took my bookcase.
Anne Pike tries to create confusion about which plate camera was sold by her co-consprator Brian Allan. She suggests that Brian Allan was justified in taking the broken camera “because no one knew it was there”. This is a ridiculous argument: Even if Brian Allan did take, sell and retain the sale proceeds from the broken camera, it is still my camera. He has no right to just take my camera. It is a ridiculous theory of law to suggest that they can just help themselves to my possessions because they think I have forgotten about the item and will not miss it if they steal it. And Anne Pike is a solicitor, surely she should know better. In any event it has been established through evidence presented elsewhere on this website that the plate camera that Brian Allan fenced was in fact the good camera from my bedroom, and not the broken camera from the garage.
Anne Pike is lying when she asserts that my bookcase was damaged by damp. I saw my bookcase on many occasions right up to the time it was stolen, and it was not damp. Nor was there any evidence of damp in the area of the lounge where the bookcase was standing. Anne Pike embellishes her lies by saying that books inside the bookcase were wet. I know from personal observations of my books that this is not true. But, there is also independent confirmation that this was not true. A complete set of the works of Charles Dickens, from the lower level of my bookcase, was sold at Durrants Auction Rooms. Who would have bought soaking wet books as they were described by Anne Pike?
Anne Pike is also the solicitor representing her mother, Helen Pike. Anne Pike is well aware that her mother has sworn an executor's oath, and thus owes a “Duty of Candor” to the executors of my father's estate and the beneficiaries of my father's estate. I am both a co-executor and beneficiary of the estate, and so Helen Pike owes a Duty of Candor to me. Anne Pike is aware of this because she is her mother's lawyer. But yet Anne Pike lies to me to conceal thefts from my father's estate as well as thefts of my personal property. Lying under oath is a crime: It is called perjury. Anne Pike is thus supporting perjury, and should therefore rightly be struck off as a solicitor and subjected to a criminal prosecution. Anne Pike is also aiding and abetting her mother and Brian Allan in the handling of stolen goods.
Click Here For Evidence (Anne Pike tries to prevent Durrants giving information on the stolen property fenced by Brian Allan. Anne Pike is a solicitor, but yet she is actively trying to obstruct justice. Luckily she was too late, Durrants had already provided this evidence)Another example of Anne Pike trying to prevent me from discovering what the offenders did with my possessions can be found in the transcripts of the TV law suite. In the following extract Anne Pike asks District Judge Birchall not to order that her mother, Helen Hermione Pike, provide proper accounting for my possessions that she took from my home. Anne Pike also asks District Judge Birchall to make an order to deter me “from bringing other proceedings in other courts”. This makes it very clear that Anne Pike, Helen Pike and Brian Allan are trying to hide their activities from me. Their behaviour in court is totally at odds with their attempts to justify their actions by claiming that they are doing me a favour, and claiming that they are acting out of love for me. The very act of bringing the law suite tells them loud and clear that I do not want their so-called help.
Click Here For Evidence (An extract from the transcripts of the TV law suite.)MISS PIKE: The last thing I wanted to mention was the claimant's request in his questionnaire for a list of every item in the house.
DISTRICT JUDGE BIRCHALL: That is not relevant to these proceedings. His claim, if you look at the claim form, is specifically on the question of the television.
MISS PIKE: Yes, it is.
DISTRICT JUDGE BIRCHALL: That is what I am dealing with.
MISS PIKE: Yes, sir.
DISTRICT JUDGE BIRCHALL: Anything else would, it seems to me, if there is an issue of maladministration that is a matter for a different court and I am not going to deal with that.
MISS PIKE: Thank you, sir.
DISTRICT JUDGE BIRCHALL: Is there anything else?
MISS PIKE: No, that is all, sir. Anything we are able to do in these proceedings to deter the claimant from bringing other proceedings in other courts would of course be extremely welcome to the defendants because we do suspect by his request for a list that - and the other items mentioned on the tape recording in fact, sir, which we were not aware of here that this may only be the beginning and we would like to make sure that he does not persist in bringing claims. I realise, sir, that there may not be very much that you can do but if you are minded to make some finding that the estate had been dealt with correctly, and properly. that that might assist us in dealing with any future claim.
Francis Arnold Hampson usually goes by the name Arnold. He is a director of Becketts Bakery Engineers. This is a engineering firm that makes and sells equipment to the bakery and pizza indistries. Their contact information is a s follows:
| Becketts | Phone: +44(0)1706 364103 |
| Fir Street | Fax: +44(0)1706 625057 |
| Heywood | Email: info@becketts.co.uk |
| Lancashire | Web: http://www.becketts.co.uk |
| OL10 1NP | Web: Alternate Site |
| England |
If you are thinking of doing business with Becketts Bakery Engineers you might what to consider if they can be trusted to treat their customers honestly and fairly if they would steal from their own family in such a callous and brutal manner. Why put yourself at risk? There are many other businesses out there. You would be much safer to take your business elsewhere.
The roots of this situation started before my father's death. Towards the end of his life my father suffered a series of strokes, and he knew that the end was near. He wanted to make things as easy as possible for me, and so he went to the largest law firm in town, Norton Peskett Solicitors, and instructed them to write his Will. He left some money to his sister, Helen Pike, and to his brother, Arnold Hampson. But everything else he owned he wanted to come to me, his son. He explicitly told Norton Peskett that he wanted our family home, and all the contents to come to me. This was especially important to him; during his lifetime he kept our house unchanged, frozen in time. He would suffer great anxiety if anything was moved by one of his carers. He would become obsessed with returning it to its correct position. In addition to his verbal instructions to Norton Peskett, he also gave written instructions that confirmed his wishes. John Loftus, the partner in Norton Peskett that wrote my father's Will, took attendance notes at these meetings with my father. These notes also confirm that John Loftus received and understood my father's instructions. The instructions written by my father, and John Loftus' attendance notes, are available as evidence. I obtained these documents from Norton Peskett when I forced them to turn over their files to me, and so their provenance is impeccable. The police cannot dispute the authenticity of these documents. Much of the contents of our home at the time of my father's death comprised my own personal property. These were items that had never belonged to my father, and so were not part of his estate. No executor of my father's estate has any lawful right to interfere with my personal possessions.
John Loftus defied my father's wishes, and instead structured my father's Will as a trust for sale. If my father had understood this betrayal he would have been shocked, but my father was a kind and trusting man, and so was easily mislead by his own lawyer. John Loftus has attempted to justify this deception to me by telling me that a trust for sale is a device used when multiple residual beneficiaries want the same item from the estate. But John Loftus' explanation is bogus: There was only ever one residual beneficiary in my father's estate, that was me. The true motive for John Loftus' deception was to give Norton Peskett more control over the estate after my father's death. Norton Peskett views Will writing as a loss-leader: They ensnare their victims by offering a cheap, even free, Will writing service. But the real price of having Norton Peskett write your Will is paid after your death when Norton Peskett loots your estate.
After my father's death John Loftus met with Helen Pike, and together they forged a conspiracy to obtain a Grant of Probate that did not include me. John Loftus wanted to avoid having me involved in the estate administration as he knew that I was the Residual Beneficiary, and thus only I would have an interest in ensuring that the estate was administered correctly. John Loftus found a kindred spirit in Helen Pike: John Loftus was a priest and Helen Pike was a lay reader in her church. Both of them professionals in the industry of misleading gullible weak minded victims by preying on their fears and psychological needs. Together they hatched a plan to exclude me. In order to obtain a Grant of Probate they both had to commit perjury and contempt of court by claiming that they had my permission to exclude me from the Grant. They never asked me for this permission, and if they had I would have refused. Over the years John Loftus has lied repeatedly to cover up this crime. They covered for each other, and confirmed each other's lies. Thus I am quite certain that they acted deliberately and in conspiracy. This was no innocent misunderstanding as they have claimed. Further confirmation of their criminal intent comes from the fight that they put up when I demanded that this situation be remedied. It took many years of hard battle to rectify this situation. During these battles John Loftus told me that it could not be done, that no mechanism existed to get me on the Grant. John Loftus told me that he was an expert in Probate Law, and so I should believe him when he told me that it was impossible. He would drag out every action for several months. He would claim to be on vacation for months at a time when I know for a fact he was at work in his Norton Peskett office. It took many years of determination and great financial cost but eventually I got a Grant of Probate. John Loftus is now removed as an executor of my father's estate. The fact that I succeeded in obtaining a Grant proves that John Loftus had been lying to me all along every time he told me that it was impossible. Since John Loftus claims to be a specialist in Probate Law his bad advice can only be construed as deliberate lies to further his cause.
The next phase of the situation began when I became the sole executor. This phase was characterized by John Loftus pretending to be helpful, and co-operating to a very limited extent. Norton Peskett still had control of a lot of the financial assets of the estate, and so I had to tread very carefully. Many of the phone conversations between myself and John Loftus appear friendly during this phase. I was trying to collect evidence, and so I could not openly tell Norton Peskett that I was aware of their complicity in the situation. John Loftus stalled the handover of these assets for a long time. I knew that if I issued court proceedings Norton Peskett would take these assets to pay the costs of fighting me. Thus I had to bite my lip and pretend that I did not know what Norton Peskett had done. Indeed, some of my readers have commented that some of my phone conversations with Helen Pike seemed friendly. This also was necessitated by my need to collect evidence before the offenders became aware that their crimes were known.
Eventually I had no choice but to demand that Norton Peskett deliver the financial assets to me. They had no more excuses, and so they turned over all the proceeds from that part of the estate that they had administered. It now became apparent that they had only administered the assets that were domiciled in the United Kingdom. This was the easy part. The more difficult part of the estate administration was to deal with financial assets domiciled in other countries. Norton Peskett had totally failed to handle this part of the estate. They just said to me that I now had the stock certificates etc., and so it should be easy for me to administer the remaining assets. The truth of course was that Norton Peskett were incapable of handling this more difficult part of the administration. They had merely fed from the low hanging branches, and left the difficult part of the work for me to do. Nonetheless, it was a great relief to get what little was left of my father's financial assets out of Norton Peskett's control. And little it was, the losses caused by Norton Peskett were staggering.
During this phase John Loftus was also willing to make a witness statement describing the actions of Brian Allan. This witness statement is presented in another part of this website. This was the last co-operation I got from John Loftus, and marked the end of this phase.
The final phase of Norton Peskett's involvement is characterized by open hostility. I let Norton Peskett know that I was aware of their treachery. I issued court proceedings against them in the county court, but there was no hope of justice in a court room run by a judge that did business with Norton Peskett on a regular basis. I created a website that described my experiences. Norton Peskett hired one of the largest law firms on the planet, Pinsent Masons, to issue proceedings against me in a United Nations court in Geneva, Switzerland, in an attempt to shut that website down and hide the truth of what they had done to me. Their court action failed, and that site is still on the air to this day. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Norton Peskett, the largest law firm in the region, considered themselves incapable of conducting that litigation for themselves, and needed to hire another law firm to represent them. Norton Peskett have make numerous criminal complaints to the Lowestoft Police in their attempts to harass me and intimidate me into silence. One recent example is their accusation that I sent out postcards containing derogatory comments about Norton Peskett which caused the biggest law firm in the region to feel harassed and intimidated. This resulted in two detectives from Lowestoft serving a “Harassment Waring Letter” on me. In response I served a harassment warning letter on Douglas Paxton, the chief constable of Suffolk. He kindly responded with a letter acknowledging service of process. These three letters are presented here:
Click Here For Evidence (“Harassment Warning Letter” served on me by Lowestoft Detectives, “Harassment Warning Letter” that I served on Douglas Paxton and acknowledgment of service from Douglas Paxton)Some additional material relating to Norton Peskett can be found on the website at http://norpes.com. This includes, inter alia, an investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority into fake good reviews of Norton Peskett's services written by Norton Peskett themselves. These fake glowing testimonials were published on Norton Peskett's own website, and on websites controlled by the reputation management company the best of Lowestoft.
In hindsight I wish I had acted more decisively against the offenders immediately after my father's death. But I was in a daze, a dream like state, my surroundings and what was happening around me did not seem real. I was totally disorientated. I needed emotional support, and so I was reluctant to confront the only family I had left. Before he died my father had told me that Helen Pike and Arnold Hampson would help me, and so I felt that distrusting them was in some strange way distrusting my father. My capacity for logical thinking was suspended. It is hard to explain the reasoning that went on in my head at this time, it was a mental breakdown. The offenders saw this, and, like predators baying for a kill, they exploited my weakness every which way they could.
Brian Allan approached me at my father's funeral claiming to be a close friend of my father. Of course he was lying, he had merely been a temporary care worker employed by my father many years earlier. He asked me if he could rent my house, and I told him that I did not want to rent my house to anybody. Brian Allan then asked if I would give him several items from my home because he loved my father so much. I told him no way. Indeed I found it offensive that he would be coveting my property at my father's funeral. Brian Allan claimed to have done many small jobs around the house for my father, but he lied about that also. All the work that Brian Allan claimed to have performed was actually done by Mr. Ron Barber. During the brief time that Brian Allan had worked for my father he had used the opportunity to case our home, and to decide what items he could sell for the most money. Indeed, even during the very brief period that Brian Allan was working for my father several valuable items mysteriously vanished from our home.
After being thwarted in his first attempts to get a foothold in my home, Brian Allan approached Helen Hermione Pike offering his services to her to help with clearing my home. Of course I did not want my home cleared, but Helen Pike had other ideas. Brian Allan became Helen Pike's soldier. The conspiracy had started to form.
Francis Arnold Hampson had made copies of my house keys from the keys that were in my father's pocket when he died. Helen Pike used these copies to gain entry to my house. Brian Allan then changed the locks on my house, and installed barricades to prevent access to the rear of my house. In doing so he did considerable criminal damage to the side wall of my house, destroying bricks in such a manner that a complete demolition and rebuild of the wall would be necessary to make a repair. It would be impossible to find bricks that matched the original wall, thus any such repair would be unsightly. This was serious vandalism in addition to its intended purpose of keeping me out of my home. I was briefly able to get back into my home and changed the locks. The “Gang of Twenty” then hired Anglia Locksmiths to drill the lock. They then installed a new lock and refused to give me a key. The cost of hiring Anglia Locksmiths to break my door lock was billed to my father's estate. Since I am the residual beneficiary that means the money came out of my pocket. I was forced to pay for the costs incurred by this gang in breaking and entering into my home, and for the costs they incurred in locking me out of my own home.
In the first few months Brian Allan and Helen Pike used manipulative techniques. They told me that they were acting out of love for me, and had only my best interests at heart. They demanded that I give them valuable items from my father's estate because they loved my father so much. When I refused to give them my property they acted as if I was being unreasonable. Brian Allan would cluck and say “you want everything for yourself”. Helen Pike would say “Brian is not best pleased that you won't even let him have the painting”. Arnold Hampson would tell me I was being selfish and unreasonable. But why should I give my possessions to these people? What right do these people have to demand that I give my treasured possessions to them. Surely it is them that are being selfish in coveting my property.
Click Here For Evidence (Witness Statement of John Loftus)As the months went by and I began to question their behavior the offenders changed tactics. They told me that no one would believe me because of who they were. They told me that if I reported them to the police the police would believe them and not me. They said that if I complained I would be regarded as the bad person, and not them. They behaved in precisely the way a pedophile controls their victim. Unfortunately it turned out that their predictions of the police reactions were correct. The police did not want to act against the offenders. It was so much easier for the police to act against me, the sole victim, rather than to act against a large conspiracy that was well connected with the local elite. The police were afraid to act against the largest law firm in town. The police pretended to believe that solicitors, company directors, etc. would not lie. Even when presented with rigorous evidence against the offenders the police stubbornly refused to take crime reports against them. Once the police make a mistake they will go to absurd lengths to avoid admitting their error.
What part of “Stay The Fuck Away From My House And Leave
My Property Alone” Don't You Understand ?
As the situation deteriorated Helen Pike and Arnold Hampson began just taking my property from my home without permission. They took silver and artworks. At first when I demanded these items to be returned to me they complied. But after a while they kept stealing items and then refusing to return them. When I confronted them the situation became violent. Brian Allan used his German Shepherd dog to force me out of my home. Brian Allan then did extensive criminal damage to my house: He drilled holes in the window frames and brick walls of my home. He destroyed the Wysteria that covered the front of my house, a beautiful feature of my home that had taken decades to grow. Brain Allan destroyed a yew tree tunnel that was also part of the character of my home. Brian Allan made several bonfires on my neatly manicured lawns which left large black areas of burnt grass, and killed my rose garden and trees. When asked why he did that he claimed that it was his way of mowing my lawn so that burglars would not think my house was empty and steal my possessions. Brian Allan moved his furniture into my house and lived there for several years. Brian Allan built a barricade at the side of my house to prevent me reaching the rear garden. He also installed a chain and padlock on the front gate to keep me out of my own home. Then, spurred on by Helen Pike, Brian Allan demolished internal load bearing walls and urinated and defecated throughout my home. Ultimately he did so much damage that my entire house had to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. When I finally got those thugs out of my home only the land on which my house stood had any remaining value.
Anne Pike used to be a magistrates court clerk. She knows exactly which buttons to press to get the Criminal Justice Industry to do her bidding. And the Criminal Justice Industry views Anne Pike as one of their own; they bend over backwards to accommodate her wishes. Under Anne Pike's coaching Brian Allan and Helen Pike made numerous complaints to the Lowestoft Police alleging that I was using unlawful methods to try to stop them. As a result I was arrested multiple times, and harassed by the Lowestoft Police. I was hauled out of bed at 3am when there was no evidence to support the accusation against me. On one occasion I was in hospital at the time I was alleged to have slashed Brian Allan's tyres. When I told the police officer of my impeccable alibi he said: “I don't want to talk about that”. The bias of the Lowestoft Police against me is very obvious.
I do not understand how the police could possibly believe the claims made by the “Gang of Twenty” that they were acting in my best interests, out of love for me, and with my permission. It is manifestly obvious that destroying my property is not in my best interests. The offenders made frequent complaints to the police alleging that I was committing criminal acts in an attempt to stop them. Indeed, I was arrested multiple times for attempting to stop the “Gang of Twenty” from carrying out their “Labour of Love”. How could any honest police agency reconcile the assertions made by the “Gang of Twenty” with either their behaviour, or indeed with my alleged behaviour?
Let's break this last point down into small pieces: The “Gang of Twenty” claims that they are acting out of love for me, with my permission. They then accuse me of criminal behaviour attempting to stop them. Either their accusations of my criminal behaviour are true or false. If the allegations are false, then clearly they have lied to the police in an attempt to discredit me. This proves that they are working against me. If their allegations are true, then clearly they do not have my consent to clear my house and take all my possessions. Why would I use unlawful methods to stop them from doing something that I had given them permission to do? Either way their accusations against me are in and of themselves sufficient evidence that the “Gang of Twenty” are not acting honestly.
German Shepherd
Let's make no mistake about this point: This was not a family pet. This dog was weaponized. It was capable of inflicting serious permanent injuries. It was capable of killing.
The police use German Shepherd dogs as weapons. They train them to a high standard. But how safe are they? Can the police control a German Shepherd dog? Let us look at an actual case: Mrs. Irene Collins, a 73 year old woman of Penrith Road, Middlesbrough, was in her kitchen. She was not involved in any criminal activity. The police came by searching for a burglary suspect. Mrs. Collins gave the police permission to search her garden using a German Shepherd dog. The dog entered Mrs. Collins' kitchen and bit her repeatedly. Mrs. Collins was rushed to James Cook University Hospital where she received immediate treatment. Despite the best efforts of the hospital staff she died from her wounds several days later. If the police cannot control their well trained German Shepherd dogs to the extent necessary to prevent them from murdering innocent elderly civilians in their own homes then clearly German Shepherd dogs are dangerous, indeed deadly, weapons.
This incident, although extreme, is by no means unusual. The Guardian Newspaper reports that in London alone 827 people were bitten by police dogs over a three year period. Of these 53 were either innocent members of the public who just happened to be passing by, or police officers bitten by their own dogs (poetic justice). Even of the remaining 774 cases in which the person bitten was initially suspected of a crime, most were subsequently found to be innocent, or the biting was unnecessary to apprehend the suspect. And these numbers are just for London. The figures nationally are very much larger.
A German Shepherd Dog, once excited and barking, is a dangerous, out of control, weapon. A spokesman for the Metropolitan police has stated: “There are circumstances where a dog may bite an officer if he is chasing a suspect and the officer does not stop as they cannot differentiate between a running suspect or (sic) a running police officer”. The German Shepherd dog that Brian Allan has used to threaten me on multiple occasions is less well trained, and thus less predictable, than a police dog. It could easily have killed or maimed me. His actions constitute reckless endangerment, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.
The “Gang of Twenty” placed some of my possessions into storage at “Haileys Removals and Storage” in Lowestoft. They did this against my wishes. They claimed to be motivated by my best interests. As usual, they claimed that their actions were a “Labour of Love”. They also said that if my possessions were left in my house they would get damp. Their last assertion is utterly ridiculous as my possessions were safe and dry in my home for almost 60 years prior. They told me what they had placed into storage, and that they had not paid the storage fees, and that I must contact Haileys to pay the fees or my possessions would be lost.
I contacted Haileys and they confirmed that they had picked up these possessions from my home. They assured me that they had been in business for 100 years, and would still be in business 100 years into the future (their words). They reassured me that my possessions would be safe in their storage facility. I arranged to pay them 2 years storage fees in advance. I paid this far in advance as I did not want to risk the rent going unpaid. Two years later I tried to contact Haileys to pay the next installment but there was no trace of them. I asked the Lowestoft police to help me as all the possessions that remained from my home were in storage at Haileys. But the Lowestoft Police refused to help. Once again I was desperate. It seemed that even these few surviving possessions were lost. A local vicar, Revd Geoff Wilson, investigated and discovered that Haileys had gone out of business within a few weeks of taking my payment for 2 years rent. They must have known that they would be going out of business as they were reassuring me that they still be around 100 years into the future. No business goes from being confident of surviving 100 years to going out of business in a matter of a few weeks. They lied to me. They told me whatever they thought they needed to say to get my money. But this is far worse than the theft of 2 years rent: This was putting my only remaining possessions at risk just for their own financial gain. Not only did they commit fraud. They committed an horrendous act of cruelty.
After further investigation Revd Wilson discovered that the property abandoned by Haileys had been taken into storage at Hamiltons, another removals and storage firm. I contacted Mr. Brian Sawyer, the manager at Hamitons. He told me that another customer of Haileys had become aware that Haileys had gone out of business, and had abandoned their customer's possessions to the elements. Haileys had left their customer's property out in the rain on flat bed trucks. That customer arranged for the property abandoned by Haileys to be taken into storage at Hamiltons. I had to pay Hamiltons storage fees for the last 2 years, the same 2 years that I had already paid Haileys for. But at least it now seemed that a small number of my possessions were recovered.
When I finally got to see the contents of the storage locker it contained very few of the items that the “Gang of Twenty” had told me were in there. The items were damp from 2 years storage in a damp warehouse, wrapped in bloodstained towels. Fragile items such as the glass in picture frames and the glass of my barometer were broken. It was very clear that this was a hate bomb intended to cause me yet more excruciating pain when I found it. Brian Allan, had told me that my precious family photographs were in my settle, and were placed into storage with Haileys. But the settle was nowhere to be found. Brian Alan made up some story that the settle did not fit into the storage containers used by Haileys, and so had been placed outside the container. I desperately wanted to believe this, but it turned out to be yet another lie. Mr. Sawyer, the manager at Hamiltons, told me that some of the storage containers inbound from Haileys had not yet been opened, and that he was in the process of searching them. Haileys had failed to provide any records of the owners of these storage lockers, leaving it up to Mr. Sawyer to attempt to identify and track down the rightful owners, and to inform them that he had their posessions. It took another 2 years before they were all searched, but the settle, and my remaining possessions, were never found.
Mr. Sawyer told me that he gave the Haileys jobs at Hamiltons to try to help them. However, the Haileys were arrogant: They felt that after owning a storage business it was beneath their dignity to be mere employees of another storage business. Their job performance was so bad that there was no choice but to fire them. Haileys told further lies claiming that they attempted to contact me when they went out of business, but had no contact information for me. That is a blatant lie: They had a postal address, email address and phone number for me. They had no difficulty contacting me when they were arranging for me to pay them. They emailed me their back account details so that I could transfer money directly into their bank account. The only reason they did not contact me when they went out of business is because they did not want to return the 2 years rent for storage that they well knew they would not provide. I wish there was some way to make the Haileys feel the intense pain, the desperation, the hopelessness, that they caused me.
Mr. Sawyer is a kind and generous man. He is one of the few good people who try to do the right thing even when he thinks no one is looking. He tried so hard to help locate my possessions. He networked with others in the storage and removals industry to track down the previous foreman at Haileys. Unfortunately no one was able to locate any more of my possessions. I wish to extend my thanks to Mr. Sawyer, and to Revd. Wilson, for their kind help over these very difficult years.
The “Surviving Winter Appeal”, an initiative run by the charities Age UK Suffolk and Suffolk Community Foundation, gave Brian Allan money to pay his winter heating bills. This money comes from donors who contribute their time, possessions and money in the mistaken belief that they are helping people in genuine need. Instead their hard earned money is paid to criminals. Brian Allan and his co‑conspirators embezzled £320,000 in cash from my father's estate. He has also stolen and sold a vast quantity of my personal possessions. Brian Allan is not poor. He is more than capable of paying his heating bills.
At first I assumed that these charities might themselves be innocent victims of Brian Allan's scams. So I wrote to both charities informing them that they were paying the heating bills of a wealthy burglar and con‑artist. However, neither of these charities replied to my letters. I thus began to believe that they might have not been duped themselves, but rather they are knowing participants in this scheme. On further investigation I discovered some familiar names amongst the executives of these charities. One name in particular was Douglas Paxton. This is no coincidence, he is the very same Douglas Paxton that protects this criminal enterprise in his role as Chief Constable. I now strongly suspect that these charities are used to launder the proceeds of crime, and to rip off gullible kind hearted members of the public who contribute to the coffers of these criminals in the mistaken belief that they are helping the needy.
This subversion of charities for criminal purposes is unfortunately quite common. Recently four cancer charities have been prosecuted for the theft of over $187,000 from donors. Last year another charity scam netted £214,000 for Harris Polak, a 54-year-old from Liverpool. He was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court and is now serving a sentence of three years and nine months. Indeed, charity fraud has become a very lucrative industry for criminal enterprises worldwide. If you are considering donating to Age UK Suffolk or Suffolk Community Foundation then be aware your hard earned money and possessions are going to support a ruthless criminal enterprise.
I welcome any feedback on this website. Just click on the feedback icon below to send your message.
Feedback