Police: Neglect of Duty, Failure to Investigate and Bias – but thats just my opinion!

No one would ever believe the Police could be bias? … Would they?

And the Police? … they wouldn’t show bias against anyone, would they? After all they are professionals and would always do their job to the best of their abilities ….

Whilst the posts on this page are true, and I intend to evidence certain things in certain places, this is my opinion!


More recent statistics were not readily available but I felt this was adequate enough. 37% of complaints were regarding neglect or failure of duty! This report makes some interesting reading if like me you used to have blind faith in the police.

DC influences witness …

Is this really what the police should be “telling” my 17 year old daughter?

Officer in Charge refusing to allow investigations into closed case …

Inability to keep accurate records … every officer afterwards shows a bias!

I have not hidden the fact that Candi has made some serious allegations against me for historic sexual offences, and that I remain under investigation. However the truth is that at this time I am not convicted of any historical child sexual abuse or physical assault and that there was also an allegation made against Candi for physical assault for which injuries were detailed.

Imagine my shock and distress when I saw this on police record:

This also claims that I have continuously tried to harass Candi but actually when it went to court in March 2018, there was no evidence put before the judge of this harassment and the charge of witness intimidated was vacated on the grounds that the CPS did not have any evidence with which to indict me.

Let me put the record straight – here are the charges which I pleaded guilty to. ONE letter and ONE electronic communication and that is exactly what I was convicted of.

The fact that this has now appeared on my record shows either a pure inability to police properly or a pure bias. Personally, in my opinion, I would say both!

Investigating Officer doesn’t investigate …

Candi reported me for writing on her fake business page, claiming this was a breach of the restraining order. In all fairness any report should be investigated (unless I make the report of course – see other topics on this page). PC George Martin was assigned to this case. He investigated the claims – or so I thought, he interviewed me and then he produced a report which he took to CPS before they charged me.

Lets look at the wording on the form before we look at the actual information supplied:

  • Set out the facts
  • Summary must be balanced and fair
  • The information is an accurate summary of the available evidence

In my opinion, the officer did not investigate and that can be clearly seen by the ‘available evidence’ that I have supplied in defence of Candi’s statement. It is also my opinion that the officer showed bias.

3rd line page 1 – relationship

Exactly where are the facts to prove this? Although Candi made the allegation in October 2018, I remain under investigation and therefore whilst the matter is under investigation this is not a ‘fact’.

refused to accept the relationship was over?

as already stated, a relationship has not been proven and remains under investigation.

Last paragraph page 1 – harassment

This paragraph reads exactly the same as the paragraph in Candi’s statement. I have already refuted this with evidence from other police statements made by Candi, and a police officer.

See more about this from Candi’s statement number 4 here:


1st paragraph page 2 – resigned from the business

This was a limited company, registered with Companies House. Did the officer check their open access online records to find out the truth? Did he find out that I resigned a month before she did, and that she didn’t actually resign until 4 months after she left the family home?

started her own business in 2018

Has the officer established yet that this ‘fake’ business was opened in May 2019 and lasted for approximately 10 days? Was HMRC checked? Or Companies House? Or more importantly as it was a facebook business was facebook checked? I checked facebook as it wasn’t a recognised business with any authorities and found it to be listed as 4th May 2019.

paragraphs 3, 4 & 5

The information here is just taken from Candi’s statement. Considering this is a presentation of the facts, and the officer is meant to have established through investigation that these are indeed facts, and that there is a clause to say this is the available evidence, lets ask the following…

  • did the officer check to see whether Candi had access to the facebook account that wrote on this business page? I am aware of and have evidence of a police statement where it acknowledges that Candi had all the passwords to the business Ambers Place.
  • did the officer check to see whether any of the images belonged to Streets Photography, – perhaps by looking at the evidence he was himself putting forward whereby a comment from a client on the same photograph stated that the images were from Streets Photography.
  • did the officer check the Streets Photography Facebook page to see whether any of the images had been displayed online at any time, and if so when they were displayed?
  • did the officer ask me for any documentation to prove that the images had been taken in a shoot for Streets Photography?
  • did the officer check the images to determine who held copyright of the images?
  • did the officer validate any of the information within Candi’s statement, for example the moving house referral? Clearly she hadn’t moved house as the unused evidence from the police investigation shows she was served papers at the address she had meant to have been forced to move from. (see picture below)
  • In fact, having determined that most of the “facts” in Candi’s statement have a degree of hard evidence to prove otherwise, can I assume that the officer did not investigate? or can I assume that he was biased by her allegations of sexual abuse?

It is my opinion that PC Martin displayed bias towards Candi because he was made aware of her allegation against me, and he failed to investigate. I have reported this to Professional Standards who have yet to respond.

Breach of Non-Molestation Order ignored …

These are the terms of the Non-Molestation order imposed on Candi on 28th May 2019. She was served this by the court and has submitted other documentation to the court to show she is aware of it.

Candi breached this order on the 23rd June but the witness was unable to state 100% that it was breached. The police were informed.

Candi further breached it on 17th July and the evidence was not disputable so I reported it to the police. Candi had telephoned me three times in the early morning with 5-10 minutes between phone calls. It was the number that appeared on my phone log and not her name. Her number was verified from court documents she had signed a few days earlier.

Aldershot Police investigated. They verified the non-molestation order by seeing the original. They verified that the phone calls had come to my phone by examining my phone and the calls made to it. At one point my phone called the number by mistake but it evidenced that it was actually the right number. They verified the number by examining the court paperwork that had been signed by Candi. They were certain that the terms of the order had been breached and recorded the crime.

For some unknown reason, this was then referred to Sussex Police on the 19th July. The officer who had taken all the evidence contacted me to advise of the officer now dealing with it – PC Martin George! Hardly independant but I hoped he had the professionalism to do his job. This was proved not to be so as after 3 weeks with no contact and several reports to the police that she was still contacting me the case was transferred to PC Scott due to a formal complaint regarding the bias.

Who else would have her phone at 7am in the morning? and regardless of anyone else having the phone that is then third party contact which is also not permitted. I was advised that next time I need to answer the calls so I can receive the abuse, so that it can become my word against hers in court, and so that I am then in breach of the restraining order! Further to that I should add it to the harassment claim that is currently in the court.


Read the page on the courts to see the updates of where this goes – meanwhile I have complained of the bias to Sussex Professional Standards. Not surprisingly I have not had a response within the allocated time frame.

Harassment is defined by legislation NOT by a police officer!

Sussex Police actually asked me to stop the third party service of court related papers on the basis of harassment. Sadly the legislation contained within the Harassment Act doesn’t agree with them and I’ll take legislation over the police anyday!

What is this? One rule for her and one rule for me?

… and no I never got an answer and her knowingly false allegations against me were not invesigated!

In fact – I was advised to file it within my harassment complaint against her which was already in court process. The CPS then put an order on me to stop me from serving any papers on her.


Read the page on the courts to see the updates of where this goes – meanwhile I have complained of the bias to Sussex Professional Standards. Not surprisingly I have not had a response within the allocated time frame.

Apparently their job is to just send letters saying this can be resolved at local level when a sergeant then contacts you and finds in favour of their own officers! Totally not surprised.

Follow My Blog

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.