Sussex Police

In 1999, harassment by my next-door neighbour, Mabry, (abusive language and two threats to beat me up) caused me to call Sussex Police, as did the throwing of a fence post at me by Mabry's friend Smith, and the receipt of unwanted goods by courier and Royal Mail, as well as a stream of unwanted catalogues and letters. Someone was filling in forms in newspapers and magazines in my name.

Although I complained to the police about harassment, which by its nature occurs over a period of time, in 2003 a police supervisor told me that he could find no record of the police being called by me in 1999, though I had called the police on half a dozen occasions.

If you complained to the police that you had been receiving goods you did not order for five years, what might Sussex Police do? They might send P.C. Satchwell along to advise you - with actions showing how to fix paper on to glass - to stick a notice on your front door to say that you would not take delivery of any parcels.

If your next door neighbour cut down grass on your property and threw it on to a flower bed and you complained to the police of criminal damage and aggravated trespass, what might Sussex Police do? They might send P.C. Satchwell along to advise you that a crime had not been committed because "grass is not property".

If your next door neighbour assaulted you and knocked you to the ground and you dialled 999, what might Sussex Police do?

On Friday 22nd March 2002 a judge agreed that I could remove the sections of Mabry's fence on my property. On the morning of Saturday 23rd March I did so. In the afternoon, having mowed the lawn in front of my property, I was using a light broom to sweep blades of grass from the drive of the Mabrys' property when Mabry came speeding up the cul de sac in his car. The car screeched to a halt on his drive. Mabry quickly got out, and as I retreated across my lawn, Mabry ran after me and started punching me repeatedly. After about thirteen metres, Mabry knocked me to the ground on my drive.

I dialled 999. A few minutes later, a car arrived, and a person I took to be a police officer went into the Mabrys' property. A few minutes later, another car arrived, and the two officers in it went into the Mabrys' property. A few minutes later, a third car arrived, and two more officers went into the Mabrys' property.

Some time later, a sergeant and constable visited me. The sergeant took my name and date of birth, and said that the constable would visit me on Monday to take a statement, after telephoning to check I was at home. My offer to word process and print a statement was refused. The last police car left the Mabrys' bungalow some time later.

The constable did not telephone, but arrived unannounced on Sunday morning. The constable had evidently been told what my statement was to say, and when I declined to agree that there had been an argument that led to a fight, the constable left.

The sergeant then telephoned me, and arranged to visit me that afternoon. This time the sergeant dictated my statement, for the constable to write down. I was allowed to correct a few words. Then I was supposed to agree to a sentence which said that I did not want to take the matter any further. As Mabry had been subjecting me to harassment for more than three years, I did not agree to this. The sergeant immediately accused me of being "obstroperous", and refused to let me sign a statement.

I therefore made a statement through the Police Complaints Authority, which only led to my being visited by an acting police inspector, who asked if I wanted the sergeant punished.

The way sergeants and constables behave is presumably the responsibility of senior officers, not of members of the public. It was presumably senior officers who were responsible for the sergeant refusing to consider the assault in the light of other forms of harassment by Mabry about which I had complained to the police, including the two threats in 1999 to beat me up.

Apparently Mabry used to be a member of the metropolitan police force, which could explain a good deal about his own character and about the behaviour of Sussex Police.

Early in 2004, after five years of being sent stuff through the post or by courier as part of an evident policy of harassment, and after five years of helping companies who had been victims of deception, I told the police that I was henceforth going to adopt their own laissez-faire attitude to this form of harassment. Items which I have not returned or thrown away, and the delivery of which I am not in a position to refuse, are now added to the collection in my garage, which now numbers over 350 items.

On 25 June 2004, in the early morning, four days after I had told a near neighbour what satellite broadcasts I enjoyed, an LNB and bracket were stolen from the satellite dish in my back garden. As I did not witness the theft, the police did not bother to attend. The dish had been installed more than a year previously.

On 24th July 2004, the side gate to my property was smashed open, six people invaded my back garden, and three of them assaulted me. They threatened further violence unless I vacated my property, McCombie telling me that I would have to always watch my back in future if I did not leave, and his wife hitting me about the head.

The following day, PC Francis visited me. Like the sergeant who refused to allow me to make a statement on 24 March 2002, PC Francis said, "Keep quiet and listen to me". He was critical of my behaviour without having investigated the grounds for it, and on inspecting parts of a latch and bolt on the ground as a result of my side gate being smashed open, he said that this was not "evidence" that the people who invaded my garden did so as the result of forced entry.

PC Francis said that he would return to take a statement, but a week later he had still not done so, nor had I been given a crime number.

Wishing to complain about policing policy, and finding that the PCA had been replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, I wrote to the IPCC to ask who dealt with complaints about policing policy. I was told to write to Sussex Police Authority. When I did so, the Authority said that my email had been passed on to the Wealden District Commander, and that was the last I heard of it. So I wrote to my MP, who told me to write to the IPCC . . . .

On 1/8/04 PC Francis telephoned and gave me a crime number, EW2/4960/04. He also said that he might visit me on 2/8/04 to take a statement from me. I wrote a statement myself and printed a plan to accompany it. The text part of my statement is printed here, and a fairly similar plan is available here.

PC Francis, accompanied by P.C.Wilkinson, visited me on 2/8/04. PC Francis said he was recording that I had been involved in an "affray".

I was told that I would not be arrested, and on this occasion I was not threatened with the cells. PC Francis then made a statement for me to sign, which included the word 'contemporaneously'. He allowed the official statement to relate to my own statement of events.

A recent edition of Policing Sussex claims to "ensure that local crime inquiries are being properly followed up, and victims kept updated about progress". I was assaulted by three neighbours on 24th July. Nine days later I was allowed to make a statement. A further week on, I had heard nothing more, and was still waiting to see if anyone better qualified than PC Francis would wish to inspect my damaged side gate before I repair it. Priority One in the local policing plan is "To provide a policing service that delivers and inspires confidence across Sussex." My confidence rating for the police at this point was zero. It was soon to descend far lower.

Seventeen days after the crime I received an undated "sorry to hear that you have become a victim of crime" letter from the East Downs Division Incident Management Centre. It was signed with a squiggle, pp "Detective Inspector". Enclosed with it was my third Victim Support booklet, with the space for the local Victim Support Scheme left blank as usual.

Some time later, PC Francis telephoned me to say that the crimes that I had reported to the police had been "undetected".

At this point, my account of the service provided to the public by Sussex police was interrupted. On 12th August 2004, PC Francis arrived at 7.50 a.m., seized my two computers and my two digital cameras, though - as I told PC Francis - they have no internal memory, and arrested me. I was handcuffed and consigned to a cell in Eastbourne Custody Centre. The charge was "Harassment - allegation from neighbours that DP has taken photos of property since 2001 and called them names through a website." My speculations on why I was arrested are available here.

Before I was locked in a cell, I was asked about my health. As the desk sergeant and PC Francis evidently did not understand a medical condition from which I suffer, I asked to see a doctor, as was my right. I was not able to see a doctor, though I later asked PC Francis again, and later still a Reliance person who spoke to me.

After questioning, and more time in the cell, I was bailed after five hours, and had to attend the Eastbourne Custody Centre again on 3rd September in order to spend five minutes signing another form to attend again on 31st October. I have a right to copies of the tape recordings of the questioning, but PC Francis told me that I would not be allowed to have copies, and my requests to senior officers for the tapes were ignored or brushed aside.

Meanwhile, censorship by PC Francis took effect on 17th September. PC Francis had telephoned me to ask me to remove from my website my report about what he had said about the damage to my side gate (see photos above), and he had asked me to change my report that he had said "Keep quiet and listen to me" to "If you don't mind, will you please listen to me." I did not do as he asked.

On 10th September, the Tiscali Abuse Team emailed asking me to remove the material from my website within seven days: "If this is not done, Tiscali will remove the entire contents of the site and disable the account." (The sequel to this is recorded here.)

There followed two pointless visits to Eastbourne to report to the police, and a visit to Eastbourne Magistrates' Court to say who I am and pronounce the words "not guilty". Then, five months after apparently accepting that they had a case to take to court, the Crown Prosecution Service discovered that they had "not enough evidence" and issued a "notice of discontinuance". I objected to this as I wanted a trial to clear my name and comment on the behaviour of the police, but a brief hearing was arranged at which the CPS announced that they had no evidence to offer, and the case was dismissed on 4th February 2005.

On 2nd March, my property which had been taken by PC Francis on 12 August 2004 was returned to me. None of it was in working order. One digital camera was subsequently returned to working order, but the other had been rendered unusable by an ignoramus who had forcibly removed the batteries, breaking the means of securing them. An expensive alloy computer case had been damaged, and both computers had been rendered inoperable, even though an official police form (MG 6C) states, "it was deemed by both the OIC and the Computer crime unit that no examination of the computer equipment be made." Nevertheless, hard disks had been removed from my computers and numbered, and Molex power connectors had been similarly defaced. Neither computer could recognise its hard disks, and one hard disk proved unreadable even via a USB connection.

As I was not able to comment in court on the allegations of criminal behaviour made against me by a not very intelligent and less than honest police constable, I am publishing here a document that I sent to the solicitor appointed to help with my defence. It outlines the approach that I would have taken in court.

As I was not able to question in court neighbours who provided what they considered evidence against me, I am publishing extracts from their testimony here.

If you make a complaint to and about Sussex Police, getting a substantive response can be difficult. After my arrest, it took eleven months, three approaches to the Independent Police Complaints Authority, and one complaint to the police Inspectorate before my complaints were formally accepted. Even so, as my complaints log indicates, only the less serious of my complaints may be addressed by the Sussex Police Professional Standards Department. The text of my complaints as accepted by the case worker for the investigating officer is available here.

Further examples of incompetence or malpractice on the part of Sussex Police can be found in my comments on (1) a form I signed at the end of a police interview, (2) the only version of that interview that the police allowed me, and (3)a "CASE SUMMARY" produced by Sussex Police. I was later able to add to this site a report on the dishonest transcript of my tape-recorded interview, written by PC Francis.

As problems with Sussex Police proliferated, this material was continued on other pages, for example the page on three chief constables.

May 2007 Other methods of remedying the dishonesty of Sussex Police having failed, in April 2007 I started adding videos to YouTube. They all feature Sussex Police, but the one exclusively on that subject is The Laughing Policeman.

September 2007 There are now ten videos by me on YouTube, all featuring Sussex Police. They can be found by typing ggm11 in the Search text box.

1st March 2008 Today I replaced the bolt which had been ripped off when six people smashed their way through my side gate on 24th July 2004. I had asked Hailsham police to provide someone other than PC Francis to examine the damage, but since then it has become evident that Sussex Police is a thoroughly dishonest organisation, unwilling to try to remedy unless forced the damage done by corrupt scum that they employ as police officers.

25th September 2008 Yesterday, I uploaded my thirteenth video to YouTube, a brief account of hostile comments about me written on behalf of Sussex Police. This morning I read an article in BBC News online about complaints against the police. It was headed "Allegations against police rise". According to the IPCC:

"Figures show there were 48,280 claims in 2007/08 - an increase of 5% on the previous year . . . The police force recording the biggest percentage increase in allegations against officers was Sussex, which saw a rise of 91%.

A Sussex Police spokesman said: "We believe there are largely technical reasons for the large increase in Sussex during 2007-08.

"However we are not complacent and we and Sussex Police Authority continue to examine the data closely in order to draw lessons from it so that we can continue to develop and improve the policing service we deliver."

The BBC invited comments from interested readers: after several failures - due presumably to network congestion - my brief contribution was acknowledged:

My experience involves Sussex police officers using dishonesty and corruption to favour an ex-policeman, my next-door neighbour, by filing dishonest accounts in criminal records of two assaults on me by the ex-policeman, and refusing to allow me to see a witness statement, presumably made by the ex-policeman, which led to my arrest, the deliberate disabling of my computers and the closing of my website as they contained evidence against Sussex police. Details are available at www.ggm11.plus.com, and YouTube by searching for ggm11.

1st October 2008 While members of the public accused of even very trifling crimes may be named in local newspapers, police officers who are disciplined, even by dismissal, usually remain as far as I know protected from public naming, so I think the actual naming of officers in a newspaper and on local television is worth recording by quoting from today's online Daily Mail:

Two high-ranking police officers have been suspended over allegations they stole bottles of wine from a Marks & Spencer store.

Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe, 44, and Detective Chief Inspector Jim Torbet, thought to be in his 50s, were questioned by officers from their own force last week.

Both the Sussex Police officers were released on bail pending further inquiries.

The BBC tv account added interesting detail about the second suspect:

Two chief inspectors have been suspended from Sussex Police after they were arrested on suspicion of shoplifting alcohol. Sharon Rowe from Hove is the district commander for Worthing, and Jim Torbet . . . works in the force's Department for Professional Standards, which investigates complaints against the police.

P.S. Mail online, 31/10/08:

"A high-ranking police officer arrested on suspicion of shoplifting has been found hanged at his home.

"The body of Detective Chief Inspector Jim Torbet, 54, was discovered just hours before he was due to answer bail in connection with the theft of wine from a Marks & Spencer store. . . .

"Security guards are said to have swooped after spotting Mr Torbet and Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe shoplifting on CCTV cameras."

According to the chief constable, DCI Torbet "served as Detective Chief Inspector in the Professional Standards Department."

8th October 2008 Today The Times online featured an article which discussed the idea that "The police want to be independent of politicians." I was invited to have my say, but in so few characters that I had to omit the phrase "and corruption" in order to submit the following:

"If the police were independent, they would not be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, that is to some extent the case in Sussex, where police dishonesty and corruption can go unchecked by both the police and the spineless Authority which is supposed in some sense to have authority over them."

I do not expect to see it published. I was pleased to be proved wrong: when I checked at 6.30 p.m., my contribution appeared among the sixteen comments on screen.

13th December 2008 Online newspapers today featured comments on the jury's verdicts at the conclusion of the de Menezes inquest. The Independent had a leading article, "Reckless, incompetent and lethal policing". The last paragraph included the comment, "There is an increasing suspicion of the police among the public and the sense that they are not truly accountable is growing." Wishing to sharpen the 'sense' idea, I submitted a brief comment which immediately appeared at the head of readers' comments:

"For people like me, there is not just a 'sense' that the police are often not 'accountable'. In my case, ample of evidence of malpractice by police officers was ignored by Sussex Police, by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and by Sussex Police Authority. Dishonest police officers are supported in ways that make Sussex Police institutionally dishonest."

TimesOnLine's article was called, "Jean Charles de Menezes jury condemns police". At 11.28 a.m. there were only six comments added by readers. The final paragraph of the article said, "Nick Hardwick, the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, called for a broad public debate on how the police should respond to the threat of suicide terrorism." I emailed a comment:

"I find it somewhat ironic that your last paragraph features the chairman of the IPCC, which has itself played a major part in dishonestly protecting police officers from charges of malpractice, as I know from my own experience."

When I checked back at 5 p.m., my comment had not been included among the seventeen contributions from readers of the Times, compared with the many screenfuls printed by the Mail and Independent on the subject.

19th December The Independent online's leading article, "An incompetent police force", was about the "botched" investigation into the killing of a young mother on Wimledon Common in 1992. Many comments had been added to the article, perhaps because of the paper's liberal attitude to editing submissions. My comment appeared immediately at the head of three screens of posts:

In Sussex, the police are worse than incompetent, being institutionsally dishonest as well in my experience. I endorse Ian Watson's comment that "the IPCC MUST be taken out of the police control" - that is another dishonest organisation at present - and suggest that public pressure is needed to reverse the decision not to have direct elections to police authorities. Sussex Police Authority is opposed to having directly elected members because they might disagree with the Chief Constable!

19th December I wrote to the Chief Constable:

This is a formal request that you order, as soon as practicable:
• the destruction of my fingerprints and DNA samples
• the deletion of my DNA profile
• the deletion or updating of any other database records linking to this information.

I assume that my fingerprints and DNA are on the NDNA Database because my finger-prints and DNA were taken at Eastbourne Custody Centre following my arrest on 12th August 2004 by the dishonest and corrupt PC Francis, aided by the dishonest PC Wilkinson.

Presumably it was the same dishonest and corrupt PC Francis who broke one of my digital cameras and took apart and sabotaged my computers. I was not allowed to see a witness statement which had led to my arrest. It was presumably by Mabry, an ex-policeman, my next-door neighbour, the most shameless liar I have met in my life.

I refused to accept a caution from PC Francis either at Eastbourne Custody Centre, or a few days later when he telephoned me to say that he could arrest me again. PC Francis was not authorised to issue a caution, as I had most certainly not admitted harassment of the people who had smashed open my side gate and assaulted me in my back garden, the culmination of more than five years' harassment of me by the ex-policeman.

The dilatory Crown Prosecution Service issued a Notice of Discontinuance in January 2005, which I rejected, but I was unfortunately unable to say what I thought of Sussex Police in court because at a very brief hearing the prosecution merely said that they were offering no evidence.

My identity is established by the name and signature at the end of this letter, which are already in Sussex Police records.

The reason for asking you to remove my records and destroy any DNA samples and profiles therefrom is that I am innocent in the eyes of the law, and recently seventeen judges in the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that the UK is in violation of the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8): ". . . the retention at issue constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society."

23rd December I was prompted to send that letter by an article called "Don't delay: Delete your DNA today" on a website, The Register. As acknowledgement for their help, I added a short note to readers' comments on the article, starting "Thanks to The Register . . . ", and ending with the URL of this web page." When I checked back later today, I was delighted to find that my comment had passed the moderation process.

My letter received a courteous reply dated 2nd January from the Registry Clerk in the Chief Constable's Office, explaining that sufficient time would be needed for enquiries to be carried out before a full reply could be sent. Though the Clerk did not say so, individual forces may need to take national policy into account.

P.S. A letter dated 9th January 2009 from the Sussex Police Criminal Justice Department said, "Your fingerprints, photograph and DNA sample were taken lawfully in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act," and quoted an ACPO spokesperson who stressed that "the existing law on the taking and retention of fingerprints remains in place."

A quick perusal of the PACE Act suggests that fingerprints and a DNA sample can be taken by police from someone charged with a recordable offence. As I was charged with a recordable offence by the dishonest and corrupt PC Francis, it looks as though I will either have to wait for a change in the law, or take Sussex Police to court because, as the victim of harassment from the people I was supposed to be harassing, I should not have been charged.

10th January 2009 I emailed the Editor of the Eastbourne Herald/Gazette about Crime records:

'In the Herald earlier this month, an advertisement misleadingly claimed that "crime is down in Eastbourne by over 20% since 2003/04, as a result of the work undertaken by Eastbourne District Police and the Eastbourne Crime Reduction Partnership." No one can possibly know what the crime figures were, though if your readers want a truer picture of the figures for local recorded crime they can find them on the East Sussex in Figures (ESiF) website, which includes a page called "Recorded crime by key offences, 2003-2008 - districts". Under the East Sussex sub-heading can be found figures for Eastbourne and four other areas. The statistics are for six offences, and were compiled for 2007-8 and the four preceding years. As I would have expected normal changes from year to year to be only gradual, the figures for Eastbourne are remarkable. "Theft from a vehicle offences recorded" changed from 1,117 to 439, a drop of 61%! "Theft of a motor vehicle offences recorded" dropped from 337 to 153, a decrease of 55%! "Burglary dwelling offences recorded" fell from 843 to 287, a reduction of 66%! "Robbery offences recorded" declined from 194 to 63, a plunge of 68%! From such figures one can only conclude that the police have been recording much less crime recently.

'The claimed figure of an "over 20%" reduction is not itself wrong if applied to recorded crime, but it results from totalling crimes, so that "theft from vehicles" becomes as significant as "violence against the person". The Partnership does not reveal that "Sexual offences recorded" rose from 93 to 117, a 26% increase; and "Violence against the person offences recorded" rose from 1,695 to 2,315, a 37% deterioration.'

15th January Today I read yesterday's Eastbourne Gazette, and found on a letters page a question I had raised after reading an article entitled "Crime reduction message at DGH roundabout" a month ago." Headed "Distractions at a roundabout", my letter reads:

THE Gazette of December 17 pictured two men in police uniforms posing by one of five (it is said) signs with messages for motorists to read as they negociate a busy roundabout. Were accident statistics compiled before installing these advertisements so that any increase attributable to these distractions may be quickly recognised?

The photograph which illustrated that article relates to my email of 10th January. The sign by which the uniformed officers are posing says:

8th February On 6th February the Eastbourne Herald again printed last month's misleading advertisement about crime figures. My letter to the editor on the subject had not been printed. Wishing to know who was responsible for the advertisement, I visited an Eastbourne Crime Reduction Partnership web page which claimed to provide information about "The CRP officers". I could not find the promised information, so I emailed the CRP using their official form:

A local newspaper dated 6th February 2009 contained a full-page display advertisement which included a section on the Eastbourne Crime Reduction Partnership. Wishing to know who was responsible for the publication and wording of this item, I visited http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/community/crime/?locale=en.

I should like to know who they are.

I appended my Web URL and YouTube pseudonym.

11th March 2009 Today, online editions of the Mail, Guardian and Telegraph ran a story about an investigation by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman into the number of convicted criminals, more than a thousand, still serving as police officers despite their convictions. Each made statements about the overall position, such as (from Mail Online) ", There are 77 serving policemen with convictions for violent offences, and 36 with convictions for theft."

Only the Mail went as far as naming paricular forces. An inset in their article, headed CRIMINALS STILL IN FORCE, highlighted nine examples, starting with "Sergeant in Sussex twice convicted of assault: Dismissed, but reinstated by the Home Office."

I added a comment, but by 4 p.m. it had not been published, perhaps because the article had fallen down the running order as interest focused on fresh topics. My comment was:

As a victim of police dishonesty and corruption, I attributed my misfortune to institutional dishonesty on the part of Sussex Police, buttressed by complacency on the part of Sussex Police Authority, so I was particularly interested in your first example, a Sergeant in Sussex twice convicted of assault. ACPO would have it that police forces make their own decisions, yet you allege that this person was reinstated by the Home Office. I would like to know the truth of the matter.

13th March 2009 Today the Eastbourne Herald published a story called "Detective suspended in sex claim":

A FORMER Eastbourne detective has been suspended over claims he had sex with a colleague while on duty.

Senior detective Martyn Underhill, who also lives locally, was suspended for 'inappropriate behaviour' with a colleague during work time.

Sussex Police has confirmed action was being taken against a senior officer but would not give details of the specific allegations.

Detective Chief Inspector Underhill, now manager of the Sussex Police training and delivery branch, worked at Eastbourne CID before joining the team investigating the murder of Sarah Payne. He was commended for his role in convicting the schoolgirl's killer.

His suspension - just months before he is due to retire - comes shortly after two other chief inspectors, Jim Torbet and Sharon Rowe, were arrested for suspected shoplifting.

A spokesman for Sussex Police said, "A chief inspector has been suspended and is subject to an internal investigation.

"We do not provide any details of internal misconduct nvestigations."

22nd March 2009 The Eastbourne Herald of March 20th ran a story which announced that its editor was stepping down, and that Deputy Editor Laura Sonier would be looking after day-to-day handling of news in Eastbourne. The same edition of the paper ran 20 column-inches by Laura Sonier on the appointment of Chief Superintendent Robin Smith as divisional commander for East Sussex.

Smith said, "I don't like talking about statistics", and when he highlighted "huge decreases in crime" across East Sussex over the last few years, and said, "Performance in terms of the numbers of crimes detected and prevented has been outstandingly good", he did not refer to any statistics.

Wishing to discover whether Smith's performance was an example of what the Chief Constable might characterise as "clever marketing", I visited http://www.eastsussexinfigures.org.uk/ and compared offences recorded in East Sussex - Smith cannot possibly know how many crimes were actually committed - for 2003/4 and 2007/08, the latest figures available.

Figures were given for six categories of crime, and there was a remarkable discrepancy between the first two categories and the others.

"Violence against the person" increased by 14.72%, and "Sexual offences" rose by 26.7%, whereas recorded "Robbery" decreased by 58.15%, recorded "Burglary dwelling offences" fell by 59.86%, recorded "Theft of a motor vehicle" lessened by 46.03%, and recorded "Theft from a vehicle" was down by 41.15%.

What Smith means by "outstandingly good" performance regarding "crimes detected" I do not know. Does it mean that the police detected many crimes, that they detected very few crimes, or that they knew how many crimes there actually were and that they had detected a high percentage of them?

My own view is that Sussex Police is a dishonest institution, and that any statement from them is not to be relied upon without endorsement from a more reliable source.

On March 25th 2009 a full-page police advertisement appeared in the Eastbourne Gazette. On a blue background, beneath an EIIR POLICE SERVICE badge, appeared words in white. It started, in 64-point lettering, ANYTHING YOU SAY MAY, followed by, in 26-point, BE TAKEN DOWN, and again in 64-point, AND USED AS EVIDENCE

Beneath, in 8-point, it said: "There is now a Policing Pledge. It's a new set of promises from the police on the service they should give you. One of the promises is to listen to any issues you may have about crime in your area. They also promise to keep you informed of action taken and the progress they have made."

Beneath that, same size, but in bold, it read, "To find out more, go to direct.gov.uk/policingpledge or text PLEDGE and your postcode to 66101† or call your police force's non-emergency number."

The dagger symbol in the last sentence was explained when the advertisement appeared again, with four additions, in the Eastbourne Herald of March 27th. Along the bottom of the blue area was first a sort of motto, JUSTICESEEN/JUSTICEDONE followed by the words THE POLICING PLEDGE and the Home Office logo.

Beneath the blue area was the footnote forgotten initially: †Texts cost your standard network rate.

It was the Gazette's turn again on April 1st, with another full-page police advertisement, this time presented more like normal copy, so that "Advertisers announcement" was appended to it. The same advertisement appeared in the Herald on April 3rd.

Most of the page was white, with two areas of light blue, and two others in different shades of pink. Near top left was a photograph of the backs of two police officers, and near bottom right the photograph of a Polish PCSO.

Half of the text appears to be national, the other half mostly Eastbourne, with a little about Sussex at the bottom.

The ad starts with a royal coat of arms, with beneath it a purple-roofed Home Office logo, and to the right, the Sussex Police badge. Beneath the photograph of the backs of two police officers, we are told that Sussex Police has signed up to "a new national policing pledge"!

10 April 2009 Following the resignation of Britain's most senior counter-terrorism officer, The Independent online today published an article called "An arresting display of ineptitude", in which Steve Richards discussed the "blurred lines of accountability" apparent in the involvement of individuals and institutions in that resignation. My comment was the eleventh to be added:

As a victim of police dishonesty and corruption, I have been interested in the idea of police accountability for a few years. My experience in Sussex is that the police are largely unaccountable. The Sussex Police Authority rubber stamp whatever the police do, and recently objected to the idea of directly-elected Police Authorities because those elected by the public might disagree with the Chief Constable. The Independent Police Complaints Commission merely does what it can to defend the police, in my case dishonestly. When a situation arose which required the dismissal of the Chief Constable, the Home Secretary had to intervene to prompt his resignation. The Home Secretary speaks for the government, and the government is accountable to the people. That seems to be the situation in theory, but it often fails the people in practice.

11 April 2009 Yesterday's Eastbourne Herald included an article by the district commander which claimed to give "a round-up of policing in the town". I emailed the Editor of the newspaper:

In the Herald for 10th April, your police marketing correspondent in a short article used the word 'safe' four times, employed the word 'safer' twice, said that Eastbourne is "one of the safest places to park your car in the south-east", and concluded, "Eastbourne is one of the safest areas in the south-east."

If you go to Sussex Police website and check on local crime mapping for Eastbourne District, Crime types tab, you can discover how police figures for recorded crime in Eastbourne compare with those for crime in the rest of Sussex. For Burglary and Robbery, Eastbourne's crime level was classified as "average"; for Vehicle crime, Violence, and Anti-social behaviour, the crime level for Eastbourne was "above average".

Your correspondent said, "Car crime has risen this year by 20 per cent." The police website gives the increase as 29.1%.

The letter appeared in the Herald on Friday May 1st.

June 2009 The policy of using public money to hoodwink the public continues. The Eastbourne Herald of 5th June included an advertisement in which the Eastbourne Crime Reduction Partnership made the following claims:

Overall crime has reduced by 20% from 2003/4 compared with 2007/8
Crime in 2008/9 continues to fall compared with 2007/8
Burglary, criminal damage and violent crime have seen a major reduction over the last 12 months

Having failed to find any crime statistics on the Partership's website, and only finding figures extending back to January 2008 on the Sussex Police website, I had to restrict my letter to the local newspapers to the Partnership's first claim:

In the Herald of 5th June, Eastbourne Crime Reduction Partnership claimed that overall crime had reduced by 20% between 2003/4 and 2007/8. According to the figures for recorded crime published by eastsussexinfigures.org.uk, that should be 21%, though your readers might like to know that the overall figure includes a reduction of 61% for "Theft from a vehicle offences", an increase of 26% for "Sexual offences", and an increase of 37% for "Violence against the person".

P.S. The Herald published the letter on June 19th.

14th June 2009 Today's Observer online featured an article about dishonesty in a police force with an Authority less spineless than Sussex Police Authority. The next-door neighbour who twice assaulted me used to belong to this force. I'll quote just the start of Rajeev Syal's story:

Card fraud probe targets 300 detectives
Scotland Yard officers are suspected of defrauding taxpayers of millions

More than 300 elite Scotland Yard detectives are suspected of defrauding the taxpayer of millions of pounds by abusing their corporate credit cards, the Observer can disclose.

Auditors who have examined the American Express accounts of 3,500 officers involved in countering terrorism and organised crime have reported almost one in 11 detectives to the Metropolitan Police's internal investigators.

A senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods.

The scale of the suspected fraud, disclosed in an internal Metropolitan Police Authority report, will send shock waves through the force. Until now, the investigation into expenses fraud was thought to have focused on fewer than 40 officers. It comes days after Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met Commissioner, faced the potentially damaging disclosure that six officers face investigation over claims that a drug suspect's head was forced into a lavatory that was flushed repeatedly.

Authority members expressed their dismay last night.

23rd June 2009 The Argus online published a police story, most of the details of which had been withheld:

Sussex Police officers quit after drugs allegation questioning

Two police officers have resigned after they were accused of having drugs.

Inspector Mark Andrews and PC Bobby Newton stood down from their Sussex Police roles after they were arrested on suspicion of possessing a class A drug.

They were questioned and released on bail while officers carried out an investigation.

Both answered bail this month and police have confirmed they have tendered their resignations.

PC Newton, 30, is understood to have received a caution. No further action was taken against Insp Andrews, 38, or against two other men who were arrested at the same time.

The officers left the force voluntarily, rather than being asked to resign.

They had been suspended since May and Sussex Police?s professional standards department had been investigating the allegations.

Sussex Police has refused to say what type of drug the pair were suspected of possessing - and whether they had been guilty of having the illegal substance . . . .

17th July 2009 Today Brighton's The Argus online published a story headed, "Home Office figures show Sussex crime is falling". It starts, "Crime of nearly all types fell in Sussex last year. Police have welcomed Home Office figures showing there were 11,728 fewer crimes in the county in the last financial year," and quotes Assistant Chief Constable Robin Merrett as saying, "The really good news out of last year's figures is that there were 12,000 fewer victims of crime . . . ."

This publication has a welcoming attitude to readers' comments. I added the following:

It would be helpful if the press took more care to distinguish between recorded crime (that is, crime recorded by police forces) and crime as estimated by the British Crime Survey, which collects information about crime from members of the public. Sussex Police and their associates commonly mislead the public in this way when in their selective use of statistics they publicise reductions in crime when they base the figures merely on stuff that they have themselves recorded. They will for instance claim responsibility for a reduction in drug-related crime, when they have merely detected and recorded fewer instances of it.

The second paragraph of your story evidently refers to recorded crime, in which case what you call "Home Office figures" would in fact be Sussex Police figures, and your "Police" doing the welcoming would be Sussex Police welcoming their own statistics. If that is the case, the assistant chief constable's claim "that there were 12,000 fewer victims of crime" is untrue.

20th July 2009 A chief inspector featured in the BBC local news soon after midday and again this evening, and The Argus online made her its lead story at 12.26pm. The story speaks for itself, so I hope that the paper will not mind my quoting crime reporter Ben Parsons' account in full:

Sussex chief inspector resigns after shoplifting arrest

A Sussex Police chief inspector has resigned ten months after her arrest for shoplifting.

Ch Insp Sharon Rowe, the police district commander for Worthing, was arrested on suspicion of stealing wine from Marks and Spencer in the Holmbush Centre, Shoreham, in September last year.

She was arrested with Detective Chief Inspector Jim Torbet of the force's professional standards department.

Both were suspended from duty but neither was charged.

DCI Torbet killed himself at his home in Peacehaven in October 2008.

The Crown Prosecution Service later issued a statement saying it would not be in the public interest to charge Ch Insp Rowe.

She had been due to face a disciplinary hearing at the end of this month.

The hearing had been postponed twice.

A spokeswoman for Sussex Police said: "Sussex Police have received and accepted the resignation of Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe.

"With effect from today she is no longer a serving officer and there will therefore be no further action in relation to any alleged misconduct."