Post by Joe K on Mar 21, 2014 12:34:20 GMT
With two PINs to my name now, credulous people (or those just disposed to think the worst about me?) might think there's plenty of smoke...
I think a smog warning would be far more useful in Barton than a PIN...
Hi,
Despite a promise by the board of BTD Ltd on March 10th, 2014, to send me a letter explaining their decision not to communicate further with me on the matter of serious suggestions of fraudulent behaviour, and concealment of the same, no such letter has arrived.
I had decided to wait two weeks, that is until next Monday, before reminding them of their promise. However, despite BTD Ltd neither seeing nor hearing anything of me since the 10th, when they called the police rather than explain months of refusals to answer even a single query about the aforementioned fraud, I had a visit from two police officers, Rob Bolland and Jo Cryer, who drove the short distance from Barton police station to offer me a 'Police Information Notice', alleging that I had caused distress to BTD staff during my visit. This despite the fact that I have already asked BTD to say if staff have ever found my visits upsetting (' In the meantime, for my benefit, and the benefit of Gloucestershire Constabulary, can you clarify in advance of the meeting if any staff, or volunteers, have felt themselves subject to abuse or rudeness in general?' - Friday, 17th January), and received no answer.
It continues to be the case, it seems, that a company which has inherited the remaining funds (and most of the trustees?) of an organisation which was run into the ground by those trustees (after kicking me off the board so that their escape from serious financial penalties could not be challenged), can also refuse to be held to account, by accusing their sole questioner of causing them 'distress'.
Hence, as Rob Bolland did not leave the PIN with me, so that I have no idea what is supposed to be specifically distressing about asking and expecting answers to serious questions, anyone with an interest now has the entire weekend to decide if I can be arrested for repeating these questions on Monday, or if others should take responsibility for this situation continuing for as long as it has done, as I certainly get no pleasure in having to visit that place, and I've appealed for assistance from my MP and local councillors, only to be ignored by all. I ask again, should they not share responsibility, if not take all of it? As the heading suggests, I think there is a case to be made for criminal charges being brought, for financial fraud and covering it up, and those politicians mentioned above are coming perilously close to the latter.
This is, incidentally, the second PIN directed at me, by the same car-bound couple. The first was issued because of the hurt feelings of one Paul Harries, for noting by email that he hadn't accomplished much in the role assigned to him. Although he responded with an actual threat, the police never answered my notification of this by inviting me to make a statement. It only works one way, evidently. I do, for the benefit of the Professional Standards Department, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, formally complain about this partisan use of Personal Information Notices.
So take the weekend to think about whether claims of distress are a valid shield against public scrutiny.
I'm going to enjoy my weekend.
Joe Kilker
www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06411/harassment-police-information-notices
Despite a promise by the board of BTD Ltd on March 10th, 2014, to send me a letter explaining their decision not to communicate further with me on the matter of serious suggestions of fraudulent behaviour, and concealment of the same, no such letter has arrived.
I had decided to wait two weeks, that is until next Monday, before reminding them of their promise. However, despite BTD Ltd neither seeing nor hearing anything of me since the 10th, when they called the police rather than explain months of refusals to answer even a single query about the aforementioned fraud, I had a visit from two police officers, Rob Bolland and Jo Cryer, who drove the short distance from Barton police station to offer me a 'Police Information Notice', alleging that I had caused distress to BTD staff during my visit. This despite the fact that I have already asked BTD to say if staff have ever found my visits upsetting (' In the meantime, for my benefit, and the benefit of Gloucestershire Constabulary, can you clarify in advance of the meeting if any staff, or volunteers, have felt themselves subject to abuse or rudeness in general?' - Friday, 17th January), and received no answer.
It continues to be the case, it seems, that a company which has inherited the remaining funds (and most of the trustees?) of an organisation which was run into the ground by those trustees (after kicking me off the board so that their escape from serious financial penalties could not be challenged), can also refuse to be held to account, by accusing their sole questioner of causing them 'distress'.
Hence, as Rob Bolland did not leave the PIN with me, so that I have no idea what is supposed to be specifically distressing about asking and expecting answers to serious questions, anyone with an interest now has the entire weekend to decide if I can be arrested for repeating these questions on Monday, or if others should take responsibility for this situation continuing for as long as it has done, as I certainly get no pleasure in having to visit that place, and I've appealed for assistance from my MP and local councillors, only to be ignored by all. I ask again, should they not share responsibility, if not take all of it? As the heading suggests, I think there is a case to be made for criminal charges being brought, for financial fraud and covering it up, and those politicians mentioned above are coming perilously close to the latter.
This is, incidentally, the second PIN directed at me, by the same car-bound couple. The first was issued because of the hurt feelings of one Paul Harries, for noting by email that he hadn't accomplished much in the role assigned to him. Although he responded with an actual threat, the police never answered my notification of this by inviting me to make a statement. It only works one way, evidently. I do, for the benefit of the Professional Standards Department, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, formally complain about this partisan use of Personal Information Notices.
So take the weekend to think about whether claims of distress are a valid shield against public scrutiny.
I'm going to enjoy my weekend.
Joe Kilker
www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06411/harassment-police-information-notices
I think a smog warning would be far more useful in Barton than a PIN...