Brian Pead – now legally using the name of William Brian Freeman – was unlawfully imprisoned on 14 May 2014 by Judge Nicholas Coleman. The trial never got underway and yet Brian was found ‘guilty’.
On 11 May 2014, Brian provided several people with an information memorandum (copies are available from the publisher upon request) outlining 8 years of persecution by the State as he sought to expose child sexual abuse, and police and judicial corruption. These people included: Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Henry Bellingham, MP (Brian’s Member of Parliament) and the Home Affairs Select Committee on police corruption.
Copies had also been sent to Baroness Lawrence (because she had instigated a Home Affairs Select Committee into investigating police corruption), Simon Danczuk, MP (because he has written a book about the paedophile activities of Cyril Smith, MP and Rochdale councillors), and Kenny Dalglish of Liverpool Football Club (who had allowed a defamatory comment about Brian to be posted on its website for the world to see), and because Liverpool Football Club was playing its part in covering up not only police corruption, but also child abuse. And all this after being involved in the Hillsborough Disaster, where police corruption was rife. Double standards.
On 12 May 2014, Brian attended Norwich Crown Court for a trial in which it was alleged he had failed to notify the police of his address. The police claim that he is a sex offender by virtue of the fact that he was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court in 2009 of the incitement of a 14-year-old girl … who never even existed. The law – and common sense – states that you cannot be guilty of incitement if there never was another person to incite.
However, the smoke and mirrors does not stop there.
With witnesses present in the public gallery, Brian was forced by Judge Nicholas John Coleman to either accept the barrister provided by the Court – and who just happened to be in Court that day – or to represent himself. Brian chose the latter course. He knew he was not guilty of either the sex offence in 2009 or the failure to inform the police of his address – the very address, of course, where they arrested him for failing to inform them of his address!
On the first day of the trial, Brian stood his ground and made several applications regarding witnesses and evidence. Mr Coleman rejected them all. This is the same Judge Coleman who questioned why prosecutors had accepted guilty pleas to a lesser offence from two men involved in gbh which meant that the judge could not hand down heavier sentences. The very same Judge Coleman who was concerned about a ‘miscarriage of justice’. In the Daily Mail, it was reported on 28 March 2014 that the very same Judge Coleman had described the prosecution’s decision to accept pleas as ‘manifestly flawed’. So notice how he abandons his ‘principles’ in this miscarriage of justice – against a man who is uncovering child abuse.
The very same Judge Coleman, born in 1947, of the Inner Temple, where Dominic Bell – the barrister who failed to defend Brian properly at the Southwark trial in 2009 – now works!
The very same Judge Coleman who was the resident judge at Peterborough Crown Court between 2001 and 2009, the circuit where Brian is being tried for ‘Impersonating a Barrister.’
The very same Judge Coleman who did not send a 71-year-old man to prison for molesting a real 11-year-old girl in 2008. Coleman was reported as saying that it was with “great hesitation” that he spared Roger Martin from a prison sentence, despite the fact that the convicted man was using Viagra (supplied on the nhs.)
On the second day of the trial – again with witnesses present in the public gallery – Brian made a series of further applications. These applications were for full disclosure, key witnesses to fact being called and a ruling about the fact that Brian had not presented the Crown with a defence statement and the Crown had not informed the Court of this unusual procedure (when it is the Crown’s duty to inform the Court.) All of Brian’s lawful applications were all rejected by Mr Coleman. The law of averages would suggest that Brian might have been successful in at least one application but no, all were rejected.
On that Tuesday evening, Brian’s car broke down. It had been working perfectly but, parked up in the Court car park and left unattended for hours on end, anyone could have interfered with it. The car, previously owned by an elderly female, had been regularly serviced by her mechanic son since it was bought from new. It was in excellent condition – “one lady owner since new, only driven to the shops and back and regularly serviced by her mechanic son.”
With witnesses present as friends towed the car back home, Brian called a solicitor in London, who agreed to represent Brian. Because it was approaching 5.30pm, they suggested that Brian call them back the following morning to discuss the case at greater length.
The next morning, Brian – again with witnesses present – laid information before Magistrates at Norwich Magistrates’ Court under case law: (R. –v- Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Hill  1 AC 238). This information was reporting judge Nicholas Coleman for perverting the course of public justice. This was the second time he had been reported because in late 2013, he had also been reported for perverting the course of justice in a case involving the Appeal of Richard Fulcher for alleged Threats to Kill his solicitors in a case where District Judge Rutland had – it was alleged by Mr Fulcher and his wife – perverted the course of justice.
Brian and supporters walked from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court at Norwich, stopping to make a telephone call to the firm of solicitors, ITN, in Stratford, east London.
The solicitors suggested to Brian that he should ask the judge for a 4-week adjournment to the trial because they had just been instructed and would need this length of time in which to ‘come up to speed’ with the case.
Thus, on Wednesday, 14 May 2014, Brian walked into the Crown Court. He duly informed the Judge that he now had alternative legal representation and they had asked him to seek an adjournment.
What happened next ought to horrify you. It was not justice as you know it. The Judge refused an adjournment and instructed the Usher to call in the Jury.
The Crown Prosecution Service had not provided full disclosure. Brian had not provided a Defence Statement because he had never been Served according to the Criminal Procedure Rules. No witnesses for Brian were called to Court. This was yet another corrupt trial involving Brian.
Brian politely informed the Judge that he could not possibly proceed with the trial having been made aware that a new legal team was coming on board. According to the rule of law, a judge – any judge – was required to make provision for an adjournment. But Brian is a ‘person of interest’ to the Government and to the Police for his work in exposing child sexual abuse in Lambeth and corrupt Lambeth Council officials.
The judge called the Jury in – Brian refused to participate in a corrupt trial.
Mr Coleman – the very same man who had not jailed a paedophile using Viagra for molesting a real 11-year-old girl – had Brian arrested. Four police officers (allegedly) drove all the way from Downham Market to Norwich – some 39 miles away – to arrest Brian. The 91-year-old Violet Ecclestone (who had been forced out of her home by council officers claiming they had a Court order when, in fact, they did not) broke down and cried. “What they are doing to you is terrible,” she said between sobs that made her whole body heave. The four constables took Brian – who had been assisting the Ecclestones with fighting for justice against their local council – to the cells below the Court. This is a total waste of your tax pounds. If you any sense you would contact your MP today and demand answers. But you won’t.
Illegally and unjustifiably placed in a cell below the Court, Brian patiently waited to be released so that he could travel to London to meet with his new legal team.
But the hours ticked by.
Around 1:30pm, a guard entered Brian’s cell with a piece of paper. It was blank save for some typing. Thus it had no Court seal, no signature of a judge and no identifying marks whatsoever that would show that this piece of paper was related to the Court or the trial.
The text – just four lines – urged Brian to sign the paper to say that he acknowledged his behaviour was wrong, that he had been disrespectful to the Court and that, if he were let back into Court, he would ‘behave.’ The only disrespect shown to the Court and the legal process was by Judge Coleman and the Prosecutor and the Crown Prosecution Service at the behest of the Home Office.
Brian refused to sign the piece of paper. It was clearly not bona fide.
The guard returned to the Court. An hour or so later, he returned. The text urging Brian to sign had now been typed onto a piece of paper which looked authentic as though it might be related to the Court:
“…When I come into court I shall conduct myself in a proper manner. If I do not, I may render myself liable to be imprisoned for contempt…”
Brian refused to sign it because his behaviour was completely appropriate. Since he was representing himself as a Defendant-in-Person, he was technically an ‘Officer of the Court.’
As an Officer of the Court, whether as a Judge, Prosecutor, Defence Counsel, Clerk, or Defendant-in-Person, you have a duty to the Court to ensure that there is a fair trial, that perjury is not being committed, that all the relevant evidence is adduced and so on. Thus Brian was simply behaving as a fit and proper Officer of the Court. The Judge, however, was not. The Prosecutor was not.
But note the specific tense of the verbs in the note typed on Court paper: “…If I do not (conduct myself in a proper manner, I may render myself liable to be imprisoned for contempt…”
Mr Coleman’s use of the word “If” suggests that any inappropriate behaviour has not yet occurred (which is what Brian himself and the public in the gallery would confirm.) The use of the phrase “I may render myself liable” also suggests that if Brian were to behave inappropriately he would be censured, but that he has obviously not yet behaved inappropriately because of the use of the future tense – “I may render myself liable.”
Furthermore, the sheet of paper was not dated.
Nor did it contain the wet signature of Judge Coleman.
Nor did it have a Case Number.
With Brian languishing in the cells, his two supporters on the day, Robert Ecclestone and his mother Violet, were sent home, being told that there would be no trial and that Brian was about to be released. The Ecclestones waited in the car park for Brian.
At 4pm, Brian was taken from the cell below the Court to the court where Judge Coleman was presiding. Apart from four policemen, the judge, the prosecutor and two reporters (from Scotland Yard), the court was empty.
Brian was flanked by two Serco guards, a male and a female. We will not reveal their names for reasons which will become obvious. These two guards both told Brian that it was obvious that he was being “shat on from a great height,” that he was clearly innocent and that what they had seen in court today was like nothing they had ever encountered before.
Brian stood in the dock, the male to his left, the female to his right.
Judge Coleman – who allegedly had “great difficulty” in imprisoning a 71-year-old molester of a real 11-year-old girl – informed Brian that a trial had taken place in his absence and that he had been found guilty by the jury. This is clearly improper for a number of reasons. This is not the correct place to deal with all of the reasons, but suffice to say that Brian had not been examined or cross-examined, no witnesses had attended, no evidence shown and no jury verdict announced in open court. It was clearly a kangaroo court designed with one purpose in mind: to imprison Brian and get him off the streets because of his investigations into, and reporting of, child abuse in Lambeth Council and on the website known as <Faceparty.com>.
Brian had anticipated this since the Monday. He had taken a lot of money (some £760) with him, knowing that this could fund a stay in prison and he had ensured that Robert Ecclestone had driven him to Court that day so that his own car would not be languishing in the car park for months on end.
In the cells below the Court, Brian had written out a speech and so he delivered it to the Court, stating that he wanted it “on the record.”
“…I have shown considerable restraint in Court during a plethora of abuses of the Court’s process. I robustly deny that I have not conducted myself in a proper manner.
I have been subjected to a significant and concerning array of abuses of process; unsupported allegations have been made against me; my human rights have been breached and my right to a fair trial has also been denied to me.
In accordance with due process, I sought legal representation of my own choosing. This right has been denied to me.
I have reported both the judge and the prosecutor for perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. For this reason alone, both persons must now recuse themselves from the trial.
In accordance with due and lawful process, I have instructed solicitors of my own choosing. They have agreed to represent me. I wish for them to represent me. The trial judge is denying me this right (amongst a plethora of other rights.)
The solicitors informed me this morning that I should seek an adjournment of “3-4 weeks” at the least “in order that they might acquaint themselves with me and me with them.” This is both lawful and usual. This right has been denied me.
The solicitors informed me that it was “perfectly normal practice for an adjournment of 3-4 weeks in these circumstances”, yet due process has not been adhered to.
I continue to assert my Article 3 Rights (the prohibition against inhuman or degrading treatment) together with my Article 6 Rights (the right to a fair trial and other Rights).
I have assisted the Court in the following ways:
a) I have informed the Court that the jury has thus far been misled by the Prosecutor;
b) I have informed the Court when it has been in error;
c) I have assisted the public purse because it is evident from both the Judge’s conduct and the Prosecutor’s conduct that a guilty verdict will be illegally arrived at. It follows that I would appeal and therefore I am informing the Court and the public purse of such legal errors in order that a further miscarriage of justice does not occur and weigh heavily on the public purse;
d) I have informed the Court that:
(i) abuses of process have taken place (for example, the improper empanelling of the jury);
(ii) lack of Disclosure by the Crown;
(iii) no list of Witnesses;
(iv) the Crown’s failure to Serve the Defendant;
(v) no case progression manager;
(vi) a disrespectful and illegal lack of contact from the Crown;
(vii) a failure by the Crown to attend to a Witness Summons issued by the Defendant;
(viii) no case management file presented to the defendant when he requested same;
(ix) witnesses who are material to the case refused to attend;
(x) an improper log of the case maintained by the Court;
(xi) a refusal by the cps and the Court to process lawful applications to the European Court under Rule 75 of the Criminal Procedure Rules;
(xii) a scurrilous and wholly illegal attempt to dismiss my Official Complaint under Article 3 of the ECHR;
(xiii) Service not effected until 12 May 2014 (the first day of the trial);
(xiv) numerous other abuses of processes which amount to a course of conduct of harassment of the Defendant;
(xv) the intimidation of the Defendant by four officers from Norfolk Constabulary who failed to show a Warrant of Arrest when asked to do so;
(xvi) the Defendant’s Rights have been substantially breached and he has further been subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment, a breach of his Article 3 Rights under the ECHR;
(xvii) the Defendant informed the Court of Perjury at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 by Detective Sergeant Jason Tunn, Detective Constable Julia Godfrey, and charity director Nicola Noone and the judge failed to act upon this information;
(xviii) the Defendant informed the Court of Perverting the course of public justice at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 by Detective Sergeant Jason Tunn, Detective Constable Julia Godfrey, charity director Nicola Noone, Prosecutor Timothy Forster, and defence counsel Dominic Bell and the judge failed to act upon this information;
(xix) the Defendant informed the Court of Misconduct in public office by persons in the same trial, and the judge failed to act upon this information;
(xx) the Defendant informed the Court that the police illegally and unlawfully seized a computer belonging to Geoffrey Bacon in July 2008 which contained material wholly relevant to the trial, that it was illegally removed by the Police and the judge failed to act upon this information or report the matter to the Police;
(xxi) the Defendant informed the Judge that a witness Warwick Brown was in London in December 2009 and not in Australia as the Judge in that Matter had been deceived and the Judge in this Matter failed to act upon that information;
(xxii) the Defendant informed the Judge that no victim existed in the case of R –v- Brian Pead in 2009, the Judge in this Matter failed to act according to Law upon receipt of such information;
(xxiii) the Defendant informed the judge that neither the Defendant’s daughter nor his grandchildren had ever made statements against him alleging harassment (or any other offence) in the bogus trial for harassment at Bexley Magistrates’ Court in November 2011 and that neither his daughter nor granddaughter appeared as witnesses in that trial, the judge in this Matter failed to act according to law upon receipt of such information.
Judge Coleman claims that a verdict has been reached in my absence in which no witnesses for the defence were called. Friends and supporters have been told to go home and were thus not witnesses to the closed court fiasco. Judge Coleman says I am to be sentenced today – a highly unusual manoeuvre.
This has not been a trial. It is a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by those determined to cover-up inadequacies, the wrong-doings of the legal system and child abuse.
All of those who participated in this illegal trial should hang their heads in shame because they are, by association, colluding in child abuse and its cover-up, in police corruption and its cover-up and in a judicial system which has lost its moral compass.
In sentencing me, you sentence my daughter and grandchildren too and breach their rights. You are the cause of unnecessary human suffering to them.
The reporters from Scotland Yard – both of you – should also hang your heads in shame. If you examine the law books you will see that I am an innocent man and that this trial has been corrupt, but you will fabricate stories of my wrong-doing just like you fabricated stories about Hillsborough because you have a need to satisfy your paymasters and you, too, have lost your moral compass.
The Rule of Law, at its core, means that all individuals and authorities within the State, including Parliament and Government themselves, are bound by and entitled to the benefit of law, as interpreted and applied by the courts. Lord Bingham in The Rule of Law, page 37, reviewed the general ingredients of the general principle of the rule of law on the basis of the following propositions:
(i) that the law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
(ii) questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
(iii) the laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.
Lord Bingham went further: he said that “…there are some rules which no government should be free to violate without legal restraint…”
Lord Bingham was a former Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice and lecturer in human rights.
The struggle for justice experienced by the Hillsborough Support Group and Baroness Lawrence, obe to name just two, have inspired me in my own struggle. I have done whatever I did in order to seek justice, not just for myself, but for my daughter and her children, because they have been living a lie these past 8 years and that is not acceptable.
As a young man, I hoped that life might offer me the opportunity to serve others and make my own humble contribution to the struggles in their lives. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case and in every other case with which I have been involved since the age of 53 (whereas prior to this, I had had no involvement with the police).
I have made a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of the citizens of the UK.
All lawful modes of expressing opposition to oppression have been closed to me as the agents of the State sought to manipulate the Law to exercise control over me as I merely sought justice. Yet I did not see Baroness Lawrence thrown into prison, I did not see the Hillsborough Support Group placed in secure mental units as they fought for justice. I did not see them beaten up in the street by police officers. I did not see them imprisoned for 7 weeks for the alleged witness intimidation of my 12-year-old granddaughter who has never been a witness in any trial or hearing.
I did not see Baroness Lawrence described as a “convicted sex offender”, or those involved with the Hillsborough Support Group.
I did not see the mother of Stephen Lawrence have her life infiltrated at every conceivable level and nor did I see those associated with the hsg thrown into prison for writing about the abuse they had witnessed.
I did not see Doreen Lawrence accused of Contempt of Court for speaking out against police corruption.
I did not see Anne Williams or Trevor Hicks or Margaret Aspinall of the hsg become the victims of police vigilantes in the street and online.
Like Anne Williams, the very brave Liverpudlian mother who refused to accept the Coroner’s verdict on her dead son, I refuse to accept the verdict of the South-East London Employment Tribunal in 2008 after I was unlawfully dismissed by Lambeth Council; I refuse to accept the verdict of the Southwark Crown Court in 2009 when I was found guilty of inciting a girl to engage in sexual relations and yet the girl did not exist; I refuse to accept the verdict of the Bexley Magistrates’ Court in 2011 which unlawfully found me guilty of the harassment of my daughter and granddaughter when neither had made claims against me, and I refuse to accept the verdict of the Royal Courts of Justice in 2013 when I was found guilty of alleged contempt of court following the publication of my tenth book – from Hillsborough to Lambeth.
I refuse to accept these verdicts not because they found against me, but because they were perverse and they had no legal basis. They were not founded on the rule of Law. All my life, I have tried to follow the Rule of Law and I have tried to do no harm to another.
Nor do I refuse to accept the verdicts handed down by the Courts out of sheer bloody-mindedness. I simply refuse to accept them because they are not correct verdicts. They have no validity. They are a nullity and they have no legal effect, yet the agencies of State have sought to use them as weapons against me in order to control my life and the lives of my daughter and grandchildren. The agencies of State have sought to use these perverse verdicts to punish me and to issue random and unjustified ‘arrest warrants’ whenever my writing has become a further nuisance to them. The ‘arrest warrants’ have never materialised.
In less than 3 months, between January and March 2014, Norfolk Constabulary visited my home on more than 12 occasions. Not a single one of these visits was ever recorded. Why did the taxpayer foot the bill for all this wastage of manpower? Why did they not record their visits? If the visits were not recorded, what motive – other than harassment – did the visits have?
The obvious police corruption in my cases underpins the entire persecution of the State against me. This persecution is not a figment of a man with a complex; nor is it mere fantasy. It is a very real entity – I have been beaten in the street; witnesses to the beating were forced to withdraw their statements against police brutality; my family has been lied to; my neighbours were turned against me; court cases were brought against me which had no legal basis; perverse verdicts were returned; police witnesses lied in Court; and documents were created by the police to use against me. Whilst the documents or the Court cases were not genuine or real, all of the corrupt practices were very much real and I have the evidence to support that claim.
At all times, the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its misdemeanours. It resorted to a cover-up, just as it had done at Hillsborough and in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry.
But the violence which I encountered was not returned with violence. I learnt from Ghandi and Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and their ilk and relied on a tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes.
For 8 years now, the whole history of my conduct bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which I decided to adopt in order to achieve the justice I deserve.
I have always attempted to uphold certain principles: non-violence, the rule of law and integrity. The Government has always sought to libel me and to label all of its opponents. This allegation has been repeated in the present case. I have been labelled an offender; I have been accused of causing criminal damage to a car belonging to the energy company known as eon when it did not belong to them; I have been accused of threatening behaviour when I threatened no person. I have received no disclosure in that case and I have not been able to call witnesses for the defence. In short, the Rule of Law has been crushed beneath the oppressive might of Government which has sought to cover-up its abuses. Not ‘delusional’ abuses, but very real and tangible abuses that no innocent citizen should have to endure.
In July 2013, Lambeth Council took me to the Royal Courts of Justice and attempted to obtain a permanent gagging order on me for the rest of my life. They tried to prevent me from speaking out or writing about abuses I had seen whilst working as a Head Teacher there. I believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that “the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the Government”, and for me to accept the ban (had it been granted) was equivalent to accepting that I would be silenced for all time.
I could not accept such silence. The things that I saw, and have seen, must be spoken about. My story must be told and it must be heard so that others can be inspired, just like I have been inspired by Anne Williams, Trevor Hicks and Margaret Aspinall of the hsg, who have fought for a quarter of a century for justice for themselves and their loved ones and they fought with quiet dignity and a resoluteness which could never be shaken until they got the justice they and their loved ones deserve.
I, too, will fight with quiet dignity and resoluteness until I get the justice that I and my loved ones deserve.
The Government’s answer to my fight was to introduce new and harsher penalties, to mobilize its police against me in a massive show of force designed to intimidate me. This was an indication that the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to the Rule of Law being callously cast aside in order to exert power and authority over me.
Was I to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or was I to fight it out and, if so, how?
I had no doubt that I had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. My problem was not whether to fight, but it was how to continue the fight. Each step I took towards achieving justice was met with my having fewer and fewer rights. One step forward. One right lost. Another step forward, another right lost.
The penalties became ever more cumbersome and I have been under house arrest since August 2013 through the onerous bail conditions of having to live and sleep each night at my bail address.
Still I fought for justice.
My week then became filled with me having to report to the local police station twice a week. Between 1 and 4pm. In the middle of the day which completely disrupted my plans. I could not easily get to London and back before 4pm. I could not easily go anywhere.
The time comes in the life of any human being when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to me. I shall not submit and I have no choice but to hit back by all means in my power in defence of myself, my daughter and my grandchildren, our future, and our freedom.
The Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Rights (1628), and the Bill of Rights (1689) are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.
I once had great respect for British political institutions, and for the country’s system of justice. I regarded the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never failed to arouse my admiration.
During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to helping others. I have fought against injustice wherever I have come upon it, and I have fought against deprivation. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But, your Honour, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die…”
Judge Coleman, of course, didn’t listen to a word of this. He pronounced judgment: Brian was Sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for failing to inform the Police of his address and he added on a further two months for contempt of court, to run – not concurrently – but consecutively. This meant that Brian would have to serve a term of 4 months in prison (half of the 8-month sentence) and not 3 months because of the consecutive ruling. Yet Brian had done nothing wrong.
This was, of course, the very same Judge Coleman who had “great difficulty” in not sending a 71-year-old man to prison who had assaulted an 11-year-old girl. British Justice? British Justice my arse!
The two Serco guards took Brian to the cells below the Court. The male guard said, “You were fucking brilliant in there. That’s the best I’ve ever seen anyone represent themselves in Court. You were polite and you clearly know your rights! No wonder they fucking hate you! Well done, mate!”
The female smiled. “Yeah, that was awesome, absolutely awesome. You’re bloody good. No wonder they’re scared of you!” She smiled in an alluring way. But they still put him in a cell and turned the key.
At 5pm, Robert Ecclestone walked from the car park by the River Wensum to the Crown Court to ask where Brian was. He was told that there was no trial and that Brian would be released “a bit later.”
A little after 5.30pm, Brian was put on a bus to Norwich Prison. The male and the female court guards wished him well. The bus called at the Magistrates’ Court first and collected three more prisoners.
It was the third time that Brian Pead had been illegally imprisoned. Suddenly, once he had blown the whistle on child grooming, racism and bullying at Lambeth Council at the age of 55, his life was turned upside down in ways you can scarcely believe credible. But it is credible and the evidence exists to corroborate all that he has written about.
The following is attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda:
“…If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State…”
Hitler himself wrote about the Große Lüge (the Big Lie) in his book Mein Kampf, vol 1, ch. X:
“…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature that consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie … they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously…”
The State attempted to label Brian as first a sex offender, then as a violent offender, then it tried to gag him, then it tried to section him under the Mental Health Act. It created two Police National Computer records for him – one of which contained bogus information on the rapes and sexual assaults of at least six girls under 13 which had never taken place. Yet the police could print off this bogus record and show it to people who were minded to side with Brian, but who were then turned against him, including his own family. It knew no boundaries when it came to stopping this most dangerous of authors – a reporter of the Truth.
The following posts reveal his life as a ghosted prisoner of the State – moved between 10 prisons in just 12 weeks in a further attempt to break his spirit and prevent him from publishing his evidence of institutional corruption within the police, the judiciary and local authorities.