An old man was bullied by a neighbourhood gang. On one occasion the gang subjected the old man to a multiple assailant attack in the alley at the back of his home. There were about 10 gang members involved simultaneously in this cowardly attack. PS David Burke of the Diss Police refused to take any action to help the old man. Not only did PS Burke refuse to arrest and charge the offenders, but refused to even talk to them informally to discourage their behaviour. PS Burke was given the identities of numerous witnesses to this attack. At first PS Burke promised to talk to the witnesses, then later he said that he was going on holiday but had asked a colleague to interview the witnesses, then later still he said that he never had any intention of talking to the witnesses. PS Burke outright lied.
On a latter occasion one of the gang members saw the old man in town and attacked him, throwing punches at the old man. The old man grabbed the gang member by the throat and pushed him over backwards. As he fell the gang member extended one arm backwards to break his fall, causing his hand to be thrust into a hedge. The gang member sustained a tiny scratch on his finger tip, about the severity of a paper cut. The gang member landed on his back. The gang member then puled out a knife and said to the old man “I'm going to f****** kill you”. The old man kicked the gang member on the elbow causing the knife to go flying. It was an easy kick as the gang member was sitting on the ground at this time. The gang member then ran to an old woman who was passing in her car. The gang member begged the old woman to save him from the old man that he had attacked. He told the old woman that the old man had attacked him with a knife. The old woman called the police. The gang member told the police that the old man had attacked him with a knife. The old woman told the police that she did not see any assault or any knife, but confirmed that the gang member had told her that the old man attacked him with a knife.
The old man left the scene to collect his car, and then drove to the Police station. The police arrested the old man instead of the gang member that attacked him. The only evidence against the old man was the testimony of the gang member that attacked him, and the tiny scratch on the gang member's finger tip which hew claimed was a knife wound. The police officers, PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow, claimed that because the old man had left the scene, and the gang member had not and was never alone, the old man must have been the party with the knife. However, the old woman's written testimony clearly demonstrated that this was not true: The old woman said that she left the gang member alone in the back of her car while she went to call the police, and that when she returned to her car the gang member was accompanied by several unidentified males. It is believed that these were the gang member's relatives. They could easily have removed the knife from the scene. The police did not maintain a sterile crime scene, but yet they seek to make inferences that could only be justified if they had maintained a sterile crime scene. These are elementary mistakes by the police. It is incompetence.
The old man was sent to prison on remand for 3 months waiting on a trial. The old man was then acquitted at trial. But the police and Crown Prosecution Service were determined to win a victory at all costs. They entered the old man's home and took a precious irreplaceable family heirloom. They held this property hostage and threatened to destroy it unless the old man acquiesced to a restraining order to protect the neighbourhood gang from the old man. The old man's barrister said that the police and CPS did this to “avoid getting egg on their faces”. The police and CPS knew that the old man was the victim, but yet they engaged in coercion to extort the old man's consent to this absurd restraining order.
The Professional Standards department of the Norfolk Constabulary conducted a sham investigation designed from the ground up to frustrate the old man's legitimate complaints. The professional standards department were asked why the police still to this day refuse to talk to the neighbourhood gang to discourage their bulling of the old man. Professional Standards replied that he police do not engage in any action to discourage criminal behaviour. Their position is obviously untrue: The restraining order imposed on the old man was justified by asserting that it was to discourage the old man from beating up the neighbourhood gang.
The tiny scratch on the gang member's finger was quite obviously inconsistent with the gang member’s description of the knife attack. PS Burke was asked why the police did not get a forensic expert to look at the photo of the finger scratch to determine if it was caused by a knife. PS Burke said that the police would not ask a forensic expert to look at a photo for such a trivial scratch. But yet this same trivial scratch was sufficient to send the old man to prison for 3 months on remand. The police were asked to explain their bias in this matter, but in response they deny any bias. Once the police and CPS make a mistake they will go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting their mistake. In the correspondence between the old man and Professional Standards the police dig themselves in deeper and deeper over time, their explanations becoming more ridiculous with every iteration.
Wymondham Police Station Reviews
An old man was bullied by a neighbourhood gang. On one occasion the gang subjected the old man to a multiple assailant attack in the alley at the back of his home. There were about 10 gang members involved simultaneously in this cowardly attack. PS David Burke of the Diss Police refused to take any action to help the old man. Not only did PS Burke refuse to arrest and charge the offenders, but refused to even talk to them informally to discourage their behaviour. PS Burke was given the identities of numerous witnesses to this attack. At first PS Burke promised to talk to the witnesses, then later he said that he was going on holiday but had asked a colleague to interview the witnesses, then later still he said that he never had any intention of talking to the witnesses. PS Burke outright lied.
On a latter occasion one of the gang members saw the old man in town and attacked him, throwing punches at the old man. The old man grabbed the gang member by the throat and pushed him over backwards. As he fell the gang member extended one arm backwards to break his fall, causing his hand to be thrust into a hedge. The gang member sustained a tiny scratch on his finger tip, about the severity of a paper cut. The gang member landed on his back. The gang member then puled out a knife and said to the old man “I'm going to f****** kill you”. The old man kicked the gang member on the elbow causing the knife to go flying. It was an easy kick as the gang member was sitting on the ground at this time. The gang member then ran to an old woman who was passing in her car. The gang member begged the old woman to save him from the old man that he had attacked. He told the old woman that the old man had attacked him with a knife. The old woman called the police. The gang member told the police that the old man had attacked him with a knife. The old woman told the police that she did not see any assault or any knife, but confirmed that the gang member had told her that the old man attacked him with a knife.
The old man left the scene to collect his car, and then drove to the Police station. The police arrested the old man instead of the gang member that attacked him. The only evidence against the old man was the testimony of the gang member that attacked him, and the tiny scratch on the gang member's finger tip which hew claimed was a knife wound. The police officers, PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow, claimed that because the old man had left the scene, and the gang member had not and was never alone, the old man must have been the party with the knife. However, the old woman's written testimony clearly demonstrated that this was not true: The old woman said that she left the gang member alone in the back of her car while she went to call the police, and that when she returned to her car the gang member was accompanied by several unidentified males. It is believed that these were the gang member's relatives. They could easily have removed the knife from the scene. The police did not maintain a sterile crime scene, but yet they seek to make inferences that could only be justified if they had maintained a sterile crime scene. These are elementary mistakes by the police. It is incompetence.
The old man was sent to prison on remand for 3 months waiting on a trial. The old man was then acquitted at trial. But the police and Crown Prosecution Service were determined to win a victory at all costs. They entered the old man's home and took a precious irreplaceable family heirloom. They held this property hostage and threatened to destroy it unless the old man acquiesced to a restraining order to protect the neighbourhood gang from the old man. The old man's barrister said that the police and CPS did this to “avoid getting egg on their faces”. The police and CPS knew that the old man was the victim, but yet they engaged in coercion to extort the old man's consent to this absurd restraining order.
The Professional Standards department of the Norfolk Constabulary conducted a sham investigation designed from the ground up to frustrate the old man's legitimate complaints. The professional standards department were asked why the police still to this day refuse to talk to the neighbourhood gang to discourage their bulling of the old man. Professional Standards replied that he police do not engage in any action to discourage criminal behaviour. Their position is obviously untrue: The restraining order imposed on the old man was justified by asserting that it was to discourage the old man from beating up the neighbourhood gang.
The tiny scratch on the gang member's finger was quite obviously inconsistent with the gang member’s description of the knife attack. PS Burke was asked why the police did not get a forensic expert to look at the photo of the finger scratch to determine if it was caused by a knife. PS Burke said that the police would not ask a forensic expert to look at a photo for such a trivial scratch. But yet this same trivial scratch was sufficient to send the old man to prison for 3 months on remand. The police were asked to explain their bias in this matter, but in response they deny any bias. Once the police and CPS make a mistake they will go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting their mistake. In the correspondence between the old man and Professional Standards the police dig themselves in deeper and deeper over time, their explanations becoming more ridiculous with every iteration.