Following this post on Amazon yesterday, the links to the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth were taken down by Amazon (or not working!):
You have to laugh at the sheer stupidity and desperation of the alleged “book reviews” here. Examine the pattern:
[i] If we keep using the phrase “convicted sex offender” the sheep out there might believe us and think Mr Pead is a sex offender
[ii] If we only give it one star, everybody will think the book is rubbish
[iii] If we use words like `drivel’ the sheep will believe that it actually is rubbish
[iv] Hopefully nobody will see that our book reviews are actually being used to defame and impugn Mr Pead [but never co-author Mr Bird]
[v] Hopefully nobody will see that we actually tried to impugn the dead at Hillsborough
[vi] Hopefully nobody will see that we don’t rely on facts, just attention-seeking headlines
I, on the other hand, looked at the facts:
[i] These “reviewers” never give their real names – how brave of them to hide behind anonymous posts [a tactic they’ve used before on newspaper websites]
[ii] There are TWO authors, yet all the `bad’ reviews focus ONLY on Mr Pead – what does that tell you about the quality of the “book reviews”? And why don’t they ever mention Mr Bird?
[iii] Alex Passman – an award-winning lawyer – actually wrote to the publishers and said that he AGREED with everything written about him in the book [including that Mr Pead had been set up by Lambeth]
[iv] The VERY SAME Lambeth officers were heavily criticised in the James Walker case
[v] Lambeth officials ransacked Mr Pead’s [and Mr Walker’s] office and destroyed evidence – why would they go to such lengths if they had nothing to hide?
[vi] The Publishers have affidavits from former pupils stating that everything written is true
[vii] The Publishers have affidavits from parents of pupils stating that everything written is true
[viii] The majority of documents referred to in the book actually came from Lambeth Council itself
[ix] Mr Pead CANNOT be a sex offender [however many times the “reviewers” claim it] because there has never been a victim [look to the law books, not the “reviewers”]
[x] Award-winning human rights journalist Alasdair Palmer of the Daily Telegraph has put the following into the public domain: “…It is clear to me that Mr Pead was indeed the victim of an injustice…”
[xi] Mr Pead has been researching things all his adult life -his first book was on the entire history of Liverpool Football Club since 1892 and took him almost 20 years to research, so it’s reasonable assumption to make that he might actually be quite good at research
[xii] The police, the judiciary and local authorities were all involved in a cover-up at Hillsborough, a match which Mr Pead attended
[xiii] The police, the judiciary and local authorities were all involved in a cover-up with regard to Mr Pead – why, then, it is ok for the families of Hillsborough to declare that there WAS a cover-up and not ok for Mr Pead [and Mr Bird] to say this?
[xiv] Clearly the police do not [now] try to declare that the families are “paranoid” – this is a common tactic used by the police and judiciary if they are challenged
[xv] The family that allegedly “disowned” him [according to one “reviewer”] were bullied by Bexley Social Services and were threatened to have their children taken into care if they maintained contact with Mr Pead [an innocent man] [look up the Divide and Rule principle]. Mr Pead’s daughter (Sorrel Pead, now Sorrel Birch) was lied to extensively by the Police and Social Services, and his grand-daugher, Emily, when aged 13 was used a decoy by the Police so that they could lay a charge on him of Witness Intimidation [Emily Birch was never a witness in any trial] before throwing Mr Pead in jail for 7 weeks for a charge that was created [like all his other charges] out of thin air.
[xvi] Foyles, the Childrens’ Bookseller of the year, were bullied into cancelling the book launch – why would anyone go to such lengths to cancel the book launch if the book was rubbish?
Surely if it WAS rubbish, you’d let the launch go ahead and allow the public to judge for themselves the book’s worth.
Although the negative “reviewers” claim that Mr Pead must be `paranoid’ [clearly they do not have the medical definition to hand] the FACTS show that Mr Pead is an innocent man. Pupils state this; parents state this; colleagues state this; award-winning lawyers state this; award-winning human rights journalists state this; Lambeth Council documents state this; Mr Bird states this; researchers at King’s College, London state this.
It appears to me that if anyone is `paranoid’ it is, in fact, the “reviewers”, since all the FACTS – not mere supposition – prove that Mr Pead is far from paranoid.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I understand that there are three more in the series. I’ve awarded it 4 stars because I don’t believe that ANY book is worth a 5 on the basis that nothing’s perfect. Personally, I can’t wait for more since I believe that it’s important for journalists and authors to expose corruption at every level in the public interest. And the FACTS show that there was significant corruption in this case.