I trust all is well and you remain as ‘cracking’ as you always have been.
I’m writing to you today concerning a very delicate and sensitive matter, which I feel only you can address and provide answers to.
As you may or may not be aware, I visited Brighton’s police yesterday (12/11/2019) to report a crime of witness intimidation against me, by two individuals I know to be Ricky Dearman and Karen Irving.
Reporting Witness Intimidation
I did so on the advice of DC Duncan Lloyd from Sussex police.
Regrettably as a result of my anxiety I’ve suffered since 2017, I ran from Brighton police station in fear, following a panic attack, having construed the time taken to assess my complaint, as an excuse to gather the manpower to arrest me.
As you know, I’ve been arrested on a number of occasions for offences I do not understand.
Take for example the latest arrest on 23 September 2019, for breaching a court injunction, which morphed into harassment with intent of violence.
I simply don’t understand it???
Perhaps you can explain it to me…
As you know, PC Lyons came to my home at 9pm on Saturday night 9/2/2019. waving around a piece of paper with High Court of Justice Family Division judgement by Mrs Justice PAUFFLEY.
While inebriated, I was threatened with arrest on the stroke of midnight, if I didn’t remove all and any material about Ricky Dearman, which I may have published.
I still can’t believe it. Serving me with out-of-date paper, threatening me with arrest, and using this said out-of-date paperwork, as the justification for arresting me on the 23 September 2019.
I’ve got every right to ask the question, as to whether there’s a satanic sect within Sussex police. The preferential treatment shown to Ricky Dearman, is truly astonishing.
Staying on the subject of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgment which PC Lyons handed me while I was intoxicated on Saturday night of the 9th February 2019. It stated:
“IF YOU ARE SERVED WITH THIS ORDER YOU SHOULD READ IT EXTREMELY CAREFULLY AND ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT A SOLICITOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE COURT TO VARY OR DISCHARGE THE ORDER.”
I knew (without having to consult a solicitor) that the paperwork never applied to me, because how on Earth could I exercise my “RIGHT TO ASK THE COURT TO VARY OR DISCHARGE THE ORDER,” when I was handed the notice four years after the event.
Even the end paragraph read, “The parties and any person affected by any of the restrictions imposed by this order may make application to vary or discharge it to a Judge of the High Court on not less than 48 hours notice to the parties.”
If I was given this notice on 10 February 2015, (the date it was issued) I would have made application to vary or discharge the restrictions on the grounds that the Hampstead story was in the public domain and the parents of children P and Q, were in the public domain and were being named across the world on a daily basis.
I took all reasonable attempts to confirm my own interpretations of the paperwork with Brighton based solicitors, but surprise surprise, no one was willing to read the notice, let alone advise me on it’s contents.
While I felt the restrictions did not apply to me, on the grounds I was given the notice 4 years after the event, depriving me of my right to appeal against the restrictions within, I decided to adhere to it’s conditions as a measure of good will, and in fear of being arrested again, following a tortuous few years of arrest and detention by your force (working together with Surrey Police.)
I wish to make this very important point, while I think of it.
The Hampstead satanic case which went viral in late 2014 and has grown ever since, is a truly horrific story which I do not want anything to do with.
As a father of two children, I could never imagine the scenario in which my children would say such horrific things about me, if they weren’t true.
I was happy to put the Hampstead satanic story behind me, having suffered personal loss, distress, alarm and fear having been investigated by Sussex police in October 2018, when Ricky Dearman made a complaint of harassment against me, and which was investigated by Sussex police, but found to have insufficient evidence to charge me.
Sadly I wasn’t able to put the Hampstead story behind me, because as a public figure, certain elements of my audience were intent to keep the Hampstead story alive, and to goad me into naming the Hampstead father, whenever I went live on either Youtube or Facebook.
I’ve chronicled the malicious communications I’ve received and are available via the links below.
- My Wall of Hate dated 13 September 2018
- Any Publicity is Good Publicity dated 13 February 2019
- Hoaxtead break-in dated 18 February 2019
- HOAXTEAD Abuse dated 9 March 2019
It was only due to the continuing harassment, stalking and malicious communications that I began to name Ricky Dearman, as the person who I reasonably believed to be behind the numerous sock-puppet accounts who were causing me immense alarm, distress and fear.
I showed my evidence to Veritas Justice on 14 March 2019, who confirmed I was a victim of malicious communications, and advised me to report the crime to Sussex police, which I did on 21 June 2019, but which was never investigated. As the email I received from Simon on Monday 9th September 2019 shows:
I have been contacted by Sarah at Brighton front office regarding you wanting an update and to be completely honest I’m not going to waste my or your time speaking about what I have previously told you a number of times.
The Resolution centre is not Investigating your report but officers listen to your allegations in due course. I will not be entering into further discussion regarding this matter as I’m not longer dealing with the report.
Force Contact Command and Control Centre
Tel 01273 470 101 or 101
Email – firstname.lastname@example.org
I trust you appreciate my concern that preferential treatment has been should towards Ricky Dearman, over and above me, evident by the fact you have acted on his complaint of alleged harassment twice, having refused to investigate my allegation of being sent malicious communications against him.
I ran from Brighton Police station in fear I’d be arrested for reporting a separate offence of Witness Intimidation, in contravention of Section 51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
While I hope Sussex police would investigate this, my trust in your police force is at rock bottom and taking into account the treatment of John Paterson, John Hoath, David Neilson, Edward Ellis and many others, at the hands of your force, I doubt, with regret and disappointment, that my latest complaint of ‘Witness Intimidation,’ will not be investigated.
PC Colin Read said to me upon my release on 23 September 2019, that when I reported Ricky Dearman and Karen Irving for malicious communications at Brighton police station on 21 June 2019, that it was “embarrassing.”
I am aghast with horror and revulsion that a serving Sussex police officer, should regard me reporting an insidious crime such as harassment, stalking and malicious communication, as “embarrassing.”
I have lost all trust in Sussex police and I hold you directly responsible.
After all, you only need to recount how many times I’ve been arrested by Sussex Police (working together with Surrey Police) since 2015:
Dreadful Dates between 2015-2019
- Arrested#1 – After calling for emergency police assistance following an attempt on David Neilson’s life at 318 South Coast road, Peacehaven – Thursday 15 January 2015
- Arrested#2 – in a dawn raid for harassment and stalking – Monday 20 February 2017
- Arrested#3 – for Making and Possessing Child pornography, at Salford Custody Suite – Monday 27 March 2017
- Arrested#4 – for breaking police bail and detained over night, to see the Magistrate in the morning – Wednesday 21- Thursday 22 June 2017
- Arrested#5 – for Making a Malicious video, following a complaint by Mr D, an alleged ’Protected Witness’ in the 2014 Hampstead satanic sacrifice case – Saturday 21 October 2017
- Arrest#6 – for Breaching 25 April 2017 Court Injunctions – Thursday 3 May 2018
- Arrested#7 – for harassment and naming an alleged ’Protected Witness’ – Monday 23 September 2019
Now Mr York, (and thanks for keeping up with me thus far); it transpires that the Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement dated 12 February 2015, was actually superseded by another judgement made public, dated 19 March 2015, with different conditions, clearly stating that only the children’s names were to remain anonymous and NOT the parents.
Are you seriously telling me Sussex police WERE NOT aware of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement dated 19 March 2015?
Are you seriously telling me you never knew PC Lyons was sent around to my home on a Saturday night, to threaten me with arrest, (while intoxicated), with out-of-date judgement, which held no weight in law?
I don’t think so!
I have every right to suspect there is a satanic sect within Sussex police.
Proof Ricky Dearman is NOT a “Protected Witness!”
I WANT MY COMPUTER EQUIPMENT BACK AND I WANT YOU TO RETURN IT, IN THE CONDITION IT WAS ILLEGALLY STOLEN.
Mr York, I have known you since 2012 and I consider you a ‘cracking’ guy, but really, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
I’ve explained all this to DC Duncan Lloyd who said he’ll pass the new information of the 19 March 2015 judgment to the CPS, which in my opinion voids the arrest of 23 September 2019, and must result in the return of my property with immediate effect.
Thu 07/11/2019 12:48
I will forward on the document you sent yesterday.
Acting Detective Sergeant
The response back from the CPS has left me confused and has resulted in this email to you.
South East VRR and Complaints <SouthEastVRRandcomplaints@cps.gov.uk>
Mon 11/11/2019 16:10
Dear Mr Taylor
Thank you for your email received by CPS SE VRR & Complaints from the CPS Enquiries team at HQ.
It may assist if I explain the role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS is responsible for reviewing and, where appropriate, prosecuting most criminal cases in England and Wales following an investigation by the police. The CPS is also responsible for providing legal advice to the police about cases, although we cannot provide legal advice to members of the public.
The CPS is not responsible for any investigation, receipt of any evidence from bodies other than the police and does not hold physical siezed items (such as computers).
All of these latter functions are performed by the police and if there are any queries you have about their investigations or their possession of your property, you need to get in touch with them directly.
I appreciate this response my be disappointing but there is no more we can do to assist you.
South East VRR & Complaints team
In light of the information above, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to my house to have a chat. You can return my computer equipment when you visit.