Police on my doorstep, without even phoning/emailing first..

[Joe K]

I just had 'Pc [Rachel, I presume] 1778 Chandler' turn up at my house with a colleague. She had no interest in the harassing, drivel-laden emails, she just wanted to talk about the forum, and whether I 'invite' comments. I told her the forum wasn't the issue, and to get back to me about the emails, then closed the door.

Of course, as I explained to her, and to the 'Force Room' before her, as our boy is copying all his emails to the police, there is no need for them to come to my house before taking action since they already have all the evidence, straight from 'the horse's mouth', but Glos constabulary are insisting on this little niggle of 'speaking' to me first to excuse their inaction.

Helluva time we live in...

[Joe K]

No-one gives a toss what you think, Smiley.

What's your 'log number'?

[Joe K]

Mar 4, 2014 10:23:50 GMT 1dasein said:

Mar 4, 2014 7:52:02 GMT Joe K said:

No-one gives a toss what you think, Smiley.

What's your 'log number'?

I've given you my log number, IPCC numbers, LAPD number, IC3 number.

I'd quite forgotten about this, with all the crap you've been throwing at me (and various other police forces/individuals) by email.

Which force gave you the 'log number'? No-one's contacted me, nor anyone else, I should imagine.

Whackjob.

[Joe K]

To clarify, no-one's contacted me about a complaint made against me. If that's what Rachel Chandler was doing, then she was doing it in a spectatularly inept way, in not stating that she was at my door 'concerning a complaint which had been made against [me]'. You should ask why they are failing to do their job, but since they've blocked your emails to them, that might be difficult. It's due to this block, after all, that they had to keep asking me for details, even though you cc all your drivel to them and various other people and orgs.

In the last few months, you've sent me about a dozen emails, the first four of which I forwarded to Matthew Channon, receiving no response, likewise when I asked if he wanted me to forward the next four. I presume the reason for this lack of an answer is that Channon's last email contained this:

In respect of this email thread I am still unclear as to the nature of your complaint.


If, as I understand it, and please correct me where necessary, your complaint is that you have received unwanted correspondence from emails or threads on forums etc. The police advice in the first instance is to take proactive steps to try and stop yourself being bombarded by such correspondence. The advice would be such things as blocking email addresses to your inbox, barring profiles from any forums you may be administrator for, blocking Facebook or Twitter profiles etc.

In taking this approach the victim can directly take control from being harmed and reducing the fear of harm.

Where these initial steps fail, police would then look to take it to the next level and progress any further complaints, and where provided with evidence of such further unwanted correspondence take steps to deal with the person responsible.


If you have evidence of further harassment since you have taken steps to stop it please provide this and I will endeavour to assist you.

The crucial part being 'If you have evidence of further harassment since you have taken steps to stop it please provide this and I will endeavour to assist you.' I.e, as long as I refuse to cover my ears, etc, like Gloucestershire constabulary do, they will refuse to 'assist' me. And of course, when you put it like that, that's the answer. Caroline Priado Perez, Penny Red, Owen Jones, all these people need to do to avoid being offended and lead happy lives is to block everyone who says anything they disagree with. Which is exactly what they do. And when, in spite of this blissful ignorance, they continue to say things about people whose comments they can't see that annoy us, when they're retweeted, with their childish vacuity, we should just ignore them too. No-one has to report anyone, ever! Just never have a difference of opinion, never argue about anything. Avoid any confrontation, because nothing is ever worth debating. That's why the house of commons always has such a convivial atmosphere, after all, and John Bercow doen't come across as an odious attention whore.

So before you send your next email, just remember that it's your own damn fault for taking offence at anyone, not just because most of the things you complain about are in your imagination, but because even when people do respond to your crap with harsh words, you don't have to read it. And it saves our custodians of the law so much time and money. Gloucester City Council's Sue Mulllins sent me a letter advising me that I 'may' have made 'derogatory' comments (no specifics were supplied) about people here, and on Twitter, but that's fine, because they don't have to read them.

Despite the fact, that is, that they have now spent a lot of time and (tax payers') money on creating a new post specifically to deal with internet trolling and other such anti-social behaviour - New online crime-fighter leads fight against internet trolls in Gloucestershire. Sure, to you and me, it might seem like a lot of trouble to go to, just to tell people that they should simply ignore everything, and thereby 'reduce the fear', but I'm sure Martin Surl knows what he's doing...