Lambeth Child AbuseThe following chronology is a brief example of the significant human rights abuses of an innocent man whose only crime was to unearth substantial police, judicial and local authority corruption (all of which can be substantiated with bona fide documentation).
• Brian Pead, 63, grandfather, author of football books and true crime books, counsellor.
• On 23 December 2009 Pead is wrongfully convicted of a sexual offence at Southwark Crown Court now regarded as an “unsafe” conviction by Sir Henry Bellingham, Brian’s MP.
• Pead is found guilty of an offence which requires a victim for guilt to be established – but there never was a victim!
• The police fabricate evidence against Pead in an echo of Hillsborough.
• The police provide demonstrably false testimony during the trial in yet another echo of Hillsborough.
• At Sentencing (a month later), the police seek a perpetual search warrant on Pead’s house.
• Prior to the trial, Pead is beaten up in the street by 4 officers. Witnesses to the brutal beating (mother and daughter Adrienne and Victoria Tear of Sidcup) are visited by the police and ordered to retract their statements. Six civil cases are brought against Pead, including one by a police-informant neighbour. Pead’s tenants are told to leave his house by the Police acting ultra vires in an effort to “run him out of money”.
• Pead’s daughter (Sorrel Birch née Pead) is threatened by Social Services (having been referred by the police) to have her three children taken into care if she maintains contact with her father.
• A trail of Human Rights abuses and Abuses of Legal Process culminates in Pead being unlawfully imprisoned over a year later at Belmarsh and Wandsworth prisons for 7 weeks.
• Whilst in prison, Pead is sent for trial for harassment – no Disclosure is brought into court; no witnesses for the defence; no trial bundle is given to Pead, who is found ‘guilty’ of harassment of his own daughter by sending his grand-daughter a birthday card. Experts and authors of books on the subject of harassment state that Pead cannot possibly be guilty of harassment on the facts.
• The police have thus far refused to comply with Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
• Pead continues to be harassed by the Police who have instigated further unlawful arrests and bogus criminal and civil charges.
- Pead has TWO police national computer records – one shows that he has been found guilty of six rapes of underaged girls and other sexual offences (none of which is true)
- Pead’s former MP (James Brokenshire, Sidcup and Old Bexley) also refused to bring the police to account. Note his role – James Peter Brokenshire is a British Conservative Party politician. He is the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup and Minister for Security at the Home Office that grants him a seat on the National Security Council. Born: January 7, 1968 (age 44), Southend-on-Sea.
- Pead’s house has been bugged. His mail intercepted, friends followed, their mail intercepted; phonecalls do not get through etc.
- The www.allaroundjustice.com website removed by “the authorities” in July 2012. The website drew attention to the corruption of police and judiciary
On 15 November 2006, Pead – as head of a Pupil Referral Unit in Lambeth – dismisses Maryn Murray, a white South African female teacher – for racism and the grooming of young females. This is obviously reported by Pead to his Line Manager, Barry Gilhooly.
On 8 December 2006, Pead unlawfully suspended from his position as Head. He is not told the reasons why he is being suspended.
On 11 December 2006, Pead’s office is ransacked and all evidence removed.
On 19 December 2006, Pead received communication from King’s College, London stating that his pupil referral unit is “…the best in London…” after their independent researchers have reported on the Unit.
On 2 April 2007, Pead is replaced as Head of the Unit. His legal status is that he is under suspension (and his post cannot therefore be offered to another).
On 19 April 2007 (some four months after his suspension) Pead is called into interview.
On 31 July 2007 Pead is unlawfully dismissed.
August 2007 Pead undertakes an Advanced Diploma counselling course.
September 2007 four female students (20-23) move into a house diagonally opposite Pead’s house.
September 2007 Pead investigating www.faceparty.com after a conversation with one of his pupils about the website and also his own concerns about the site.
October 2007, Pead puts a note through the students’ door to inform a girl that she can be seen undressing in front of her open bedroom window at the front of the house on a regular basis.
On 14 January 2008 Pead attends an Employment Tribunal hearing against Lambeth Council. The Judge postpones the hearing for six weeks.
On 28 January 2008 a police officer poses as an underaged child wanting money for sex. Pead investigates (with others online).
On 2/3 February 2008 Pead attends a course on child sexual abuse at the north London college where he is undertaking his Advanced Diploma.
On 7 February 2008 Pead engages in a conversation with the ‘girl’ online to smoke her out.
On 25 February 2008, Pead attends the Employment Tribunal hearing. It ends that day (James Walker v Lambeth Council lasted 18 days!)
Also on 25 February 2008 is a fourth conversation with the ‘girl’ – initiated by the ‘girl’. Pead supplies a false mobile number again. The ‘girl’ states that ‘she’ had tried a previous false number provided by Pead, and knew that it did not work.
On 4 March 2008 Pead receives the Tribunal’s report. It is clearly perverse.
On 15 May 2008 Pead uses a friend’s computer. The ‘girl’ tries to engage him in a conversation again. Pead tells the ‘girl’ “You are a fake – fuck off!” This witnessed and discussed by Pead’s friend – who has been cleared by the Home Office to work as a builder in all Royal and Government buildings.
On 20 May 2008, Pead was arrested in his own home and charged with Exposure. Three female students (aged 20-22), who lived diagonally opposite Pead, alleged that he had masturbated to them at his bedroom window (using his right hand) over a period of nine months. Pead, who is left-handed, lives directly opposite a church and church hall, which many people use at all times of day and night. On their own admission, the police failed to investigate this case. The window sills in his house are too high and the ceiling in the bay window where the alleged masturbation was said to have taken place is too low for a man who is a little over 6ft tall to have undertaken such activity. Furthermore, the entire front of his house had been clad in scaffolding since before the students had moved in.
Photographs show that three scaffold poles and a ladder obscured the view both in and out of that window. There had been no previous complaints over a period of nine months. No pictures had been taken by the technology-savvy complainants of these alleged events, which were all said to have taken place at night. On one such date, Pead was actually at the hospital receiving a diagnosis for gout.
On 2 June 2008, at 7.30am, whilst on his way to work, Pead was subjected to an unlawful Stop and Search at his local train station, being told that he was the main suspect in a case of sexual assault on a “young Asian woman” in the road next to the train station. No records exist of such a call made to the police; no records of this unlawful stop and search exist.
On 4 June 2008, Pead was again arrested in his own home, by officers claiming to be from the Paedophile Unit who had brought a film crew with them. Six computers belonging to Pead – who formerly operated a bona fide internet company from home – were seized, along with a plethora of “computer-related paraphernalia”. The police unlawfully seized other materials (mostly paperwork).
A female detective constable telephoned Pead’s daughter, aged 34, on that day and told her that her father “…is a paedophile and we will charge him with grooming young girls on the internet and other offences…” Pead has never groomed anybody and has never been charged with any such offence.
A known police-informant neighbour (Susan Ann Pool) also telephoned Pead’s daughter and told her that her father had had a succession of underage girls at his house over a long period of time. This female informant was not in possession of Pead’s daughter’s telephone number. It had never been given to her by Pead or Pead’s daughter. She could only have been given it by the Police (since the number is ex-Directory).
Pead was not, however, charged with any offence by the Paedophile Unit for more than eight months.
Also on 4 June 2008, officers unlawfully seized his work computer and deliberately erased all of his research materials (including that into child sexual abuse) from that computer. This illicit action infringed Pead’s intellectual property rights held in that research. It was also an action designed to pervert the course of justice.
The Metropolitan Police also issued instructions that Pead should be summarily dismissed and they unlawfully forbade any of his colleagues from communicating with him, supporting him or being called as witnesses at his trial, thus further perverting the course of justice.
On 1 July 2008, forensic tests on Pead’s six home computers, one work computer and more than 300 floppy disks established that there was no child pornography, and no attempts at grooming (despite the detective constable’s previous comments to Pead’s daughter).
On 31 July 2008, officers from the Paedophile Unit – using a demonstrably false search warrant – called at the home of Pead’s friend (Geoffrey Bacon) and his 84yr old father, Roy. Both of these men have previously received clearance from the Home Office to work as builders in police stations, Buckingham Palace and other Government buildings. The same female detective constable who telephoned Pead’s daughter continually defamed Pead by calling him “…a paedophile…” and although the bogus warrant had stated that the officers had the power to seize computers and all computer-related paraphernalia, the entire search by three officers of a 3-bedroomed house, loft, conservatory, two garden sheds and a car took just 10 minutes.
The officers seized just one item – a computer. No receipt was issued. It was not placed in a sealed evidence bag. No copy of the hard drive was made for Mr Bacon. There was no chain of custody. Impacting severely on Mr Bacon’s building business, the computer was not returned until more than three months later. Upon its return, no signature was requested. It was not in an evidence bag. There was no chain of custody. No forensic report on that computer was provided to Mr Bacon. When Mr Bacon started up the computer, it failed to boot. The hard drive had been corrupted and evidence establishing Pead’s innocence had been removed.
During this time, the police were paying regular visits to Pead’s daughter and telling her that her father “…is a paedophile…” and directing her not to allow him to see his grand-children. The Police initiated a psychological campaign against the daughter by bringing in Social Services and telling her that her three young children (aged 9, 7 and 3 at the time) would be removed and taken into care if she had any further contact with her father (this tactic was also designed to divide-and-rule and to emotionally destroy Pead whose love for his grand-children was known to many).
The case for Exposure came to court in February 2009. At the same time, he was then charged with inciting a 14-year-old female to engage in sexual activity for money. Since the police had stated that the alleged offence of incitement had occurred between January and May 2008, he should have been tried under the old law of Incitement (abolished October 2008) and not the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The trial for Exposure in February 2009 was prevented from going ahead by the CPS on the grounds that “the police forgot to tell the three female witnesses that they were due in court” – this after the CPS had told the Judge just a week previously that they were “ready to go” (attend the trial).
In the lobby outside the court immediately after the aborted trial at Woolwich in February 2009, Prosecuting counsel was overheard asking the detective in the case “So where are the girls?” and he was told by the officer: “They are in a nearby hotel”. The trial, therefore, could – and should – have taken place at Woolwich CC on that February day. An acquittal could have been the only possible result because the Judge would have had to direct the Jury to find Pead not guilty on a point of law.
In June 2009 at Southwark CC a fresh application was made for Joinder, which was unlawfully granted [a full year after Pead’s original arrest.]
During this time, the Metropolitan Police infiltrated every aspect of the D’s life and defamed his unblemished character to all who knew him and to those who didn’t know him. They sought to destroy an innocent man’s life through psychological, emotional and financial means, attacking him on several fronts simultaneously.
On 18 July 2009, four officers beat him up in the street whilst he was handcuffed. Two witnesses to this brutality wrote letters of complaint about the use of excessive force against a man who offered no resistance and who was clearly co-operating.
On the same day, in another attempt to “run him out of money”, officers went to Pead’s house and told his tenants to leave, claiming that he was “a dangerous sex offender”. The tenants left Pead’s property on the following day, and then, aided by the police, initiated a civil suit against him which took some 20 months to come to court.
Two days after the beating, police visited the two witnesses to the brutality and forced them to withdraw their statements, claiming that he was “a dangerous sex offender”.
Contemporaneously, the police had a hand in instigating six civil cases against him, so D. found himself in a position in which he was fighting these alongside two completely false criminal charges.
In December 2009, at Southwark CC, even before the case commenced proper, the Judge stated that he was “…seriously concerned with the lack of disclosure by the Crown…” and that the Defence statement was “…the worst I have ever seen…” Why, then, did the case go ahead?
The three female witnesses – who all committed perjury – in the Exposure case finally admitted that they had not, after all, seen Pead’s genitals.
A detective in the case for Exposure also committed perjury. He claimed that he had not offered Pead “a deal” at the police station by stating that if Pead admitted exposing himself, he could leave the station “…within minutes…”, not have “…all the bother of a court case…” and he would “…only receive a caution which doesn’t count…”. Knowing himself to be innocent, and knowing the detective was lying with regard to police cautions, Pead refused the deal.
In the case for Incitement, all of the four officers (from the same team) committed perjury. Pead’s Line Manager committed perjury. Mr. Bacon, a key Witness as to Fact, was never called, despite the Police, themselves, inquiring of Mr Bacon whether he would be prepared to be a witness at trial on the day they unlawfully seized his computer. Mr Bacon gave his approval to being called as a witness. Neither Pead’s solicitor nor his barrister contacted Mr Bacon.
Immediately after the case, Scotland Yard swung further into action. There were numerous local newspaper reports (and an online campaign) against Pead, declaring him to be a “monster” and a “pervert” and they had also claimed that he had been sacked from a previous job for masturbating in a theatre – which did not happen, and it is easily proven that it never did. Indeed, his former employers have provided firm evidence that this was never the case.
The police sent a vigilante round to all of his neighbours, showing them the online Court Report of the case, together with Pead’s photograph, permission for which was never granted by Pead, thus breaching his image rights. When provided with this vigilante’s description and address by the local vicar who had served the community for 21 years, the police failed to arrest him.
Police officers from the local sex offenders unit gate-crashed one Probation meeting and shouted at him and threatened him as part of their course of conduct of intimidation.
On 27 January 2010 (at Sentencing), the police apply for a “perpetual search warrant” on Pead’s house, which was not granted.
January 2010 – March 2010, the Police are responsible for a series of libellous newspaper and online articles about Pead and his alleged crime.
Between January 2010 and December 2010, the Police had a demonstrable hand in six civil law suits that were set up to disrupt Pead and which had no legal merit whatsoever.
On 18 December 2010, Pead sent a 30-page document and Open Letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at that time, and provided incontrovertible evidence of corruption. No reply was ever received.
However, three weeks later, on 7 January 2011, D. was arrested twice on two further bogus charges: (i) a breach of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by not informing the police of his address in time [they knew perfectly well where he was living] and (ii) harassment of his daughter by sending his grand-daughter a birthday card and letter hoping that she was enjoying her new secondary school.
January 2011 – August 2011, Pead is forced into court on other civil matters (all demonstrably with the ‘hand of the police’ about them).
June 2011 – Pead’s father dies. A Detective from Scotland Yard attends Pead’s house, before being told to leave by Pead.
31 August 2011 – 8 police and 5 vehicles surround Pead’s house: he lives alone. They arrest him on yet another bogus charge. Two friends of Pead (one an 84yr old man) are threatened by the Police. The Officer in Charge attempts to smash down Pead’s rear door with a sledgehammer – which he then tries to conceal under his coat as he leaves a neighbour’s property.
Throughout this period, friends of Pead report that their mail has been tampered with, that some of them have been followed by police and that they believe their phones have been illegally hacked.
23 September 2011 – Pead is unlawfully arrested on a charge of alleged Witness Intimidation – by saying “Hello” to his own 12 year old grand-daughter at a bus stop (there are no restraining orders or similar against him to prevent such communication).
Pead is remanded in custody – his house unlawfully searched by officers.
Pead is remanded to Belmarsh maximum security prison – even though there is no crime and no victim of Witness Intimidation.
From 23 September 2011 – 15 November 2011, Pead is moved between Belmarsh and Wandsworth Prisons and from cell to cell in continued efforts to disrupt him.
On 31 October 2011, the case of Witness Intimidation is thrown out of court. However, Pead continues to be held unlawfully in prison – for no other ‘crimes’!
On 1 November 2011 at Bexley Magistrates’ Court, Pead loses a case of harassment against his own daughter, but no members of the public are present, no Disclosure or paperwork is in Court, and no witnesses for the Defence appear. His daughter – who allegedly brought the case against him, does not appear in Court; nor is a statement from her read out in Court. Pead has a Restraining Order placed upon him and no contact with his own daughter or grand-children for 18 months. Documents from Pead’s solicitor (who has now been sacked) show 24 months, not 18 as was stated in Court.
On 15 November 2011 Pead is finally released from prison after an appearance at Woolwich C.C.
On 22 November 2011, at Southwark C.C., Pead has his original sentence (from 27 January 2010) rescinded and his sentence (in a crime with no victim, yet which requires a victim under the law) increased to 7 years on the Sex Offenders Register and the wearing of a ‘tag’ for 3 months and a house curfew.
On 6 January 2012, Pead moves house.
On 7 January 2012, Pead went to Southend Police to inform them of his whereabouts. The officer conducting a search for Pead on the Police National Computer said that it “…is strange… this seems to be a false record … it won’t allow me to print anything out …” It transpired that this alleged record included offences of rape against a 13 year old female and other sexual offences which Pead has never committed, has never been charged with, Indicted for, or appeared at Court for. The whole scenario surrounding Pead has been one of “smoke and mirrors”.
On 19 January 2012, Pead is forced to appear at Woolwich C.C. with less than 24 hours’ notice. Pead is told by the Judge that he will not be allowed legal representation and that he will have to defend himself, and that he must return tomorrow to start a trial by Jury.
20 January 2012 & 23 January 2012, Pead represents himself at Crown Court level. The case for the Crown collapses due to demonstrable lies from the Police and false evidence being entered into Court. The Judge rebukes the CPS for bringing the case and rebukes the police officer for his ‘fabricated testimony’ and for bringing false evidence into Court.
2 February 2012 – Pead is unlawfully arrested by Essex Police for an alleged offence which is, in itself, a non-arrestable offence. Held unlawfully overnight – taken to Bromley Magistrates Court the following day.
3 February 2012 – Bromley Magistrates Court. Prosecution fail to attend; case moved to Greenwich Magistrates Court.
7 February 2012 – Greenwich Magistrates Court. Prosecution fail to attend. Magistrate adjourns to 14th February “to give the Crown a second chance”, despite being in possession of facts that show that Pead cannot be guilty of an offence.
14 February 2012 – Greenwich Magistrates Court. Prosecution attend – drop two original charges, but add another bogus charge.
28 February 2012 – bogus charge dropped at Greenwich Magistrates’ Court.
May 2012 – Pead writes to his MP (James Duddridge) and provides evidence of police and judicial corruption.
30 July 2012 – Duddridge writes back “Do not correspond with me again” and fails to act re police and judicial corruption.
For a full chronology contained in the comprehensive 80-page INFORMATION MEMORANDUM up to 14 May 2014 click here: INFORMATION MEMORANDUM SHORT VERSION version6 which outlined significant police and judicial corruption.
CONTACT DETAILS: 07508 242 101
Lambeth Child Abuse Prevention, Flat 2, 66 Goodwins Road, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 5PD
© LambethChildAbuseAndCoverup.com 2013 – 2017 All Rights Reserved