Information on complaining about the iPCC

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Information on complaining about the iPCC

The British public are becoming more and more frightened at the
lack of activity of the iPCC to the extent that the iPCC LOOK just
like an extension of the police to protect police in relation to
their crimes. The newspaper articles cogently shows that iPCC are
not doing their job correctly and are just covering up for the
police. Given the hundred solicitors that have resigned and even
ex-members of the iPCC condemning the iPCC could you supply the
information that you hold on whom controls and investigates the
shortcomings of the iPCC and where a member of the public can ask
for an investigation into the iPCC.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Note my letter below
Preamble
Please note that xxxxxxxxxxxx expert that is new evidence that
proves that PC Heiniger, my old friend from the time I was a young
lad, is a liar. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx has worked for year with the police
prosecuting people therefore he must have been trusted by the
police in the past as a credible expert witness therefore he should
be trusted as an expert witness in my case and is supporting
allegations investigated in his report.

Heiniger 5 February 2010

Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXXX
IPCC
1st Floor, Oaklands House
Washway Road
Sale M33 6FS

Dear XXXXXXXXX

Ref; 2010/001470.

I have just received a letter from Detective Chief Inspector H
Jobson [Ref: HJ/CO/14/PW/CO36/10] saying that my complaint is
repetitions and therefore the police have asked for the complaint
to be dispensed with as the police have done with other people.
This reluctance to even start to investigate the new evidence that
I have secured despite the police’s best efforts to stop me
securing the evidence is precisely what I complaining about and
clear evidence of Northumbria police trying to conceal criminal
activities to negate embarrassment and criminal liability.
Furthermore, this situation shows why the police should not be
allowed to investigate themselves just like turkeys will never vote
for Christmas, foxes cannot be trusted with looking after the
chickens and the police will not admit that they are corrupt if
they can cover it. Natural justice dictates that everyone’s
complaint of the police and Guy Shorrock should be investigated in
totality by the same organisation that is independent.

My complaint about PC Heiniger needs to be read in conjunction with
my other complaints of the other witnesses that lied in my court
case and other people’s various complaints of Guy Shorrock and
Parkin. Furthermore, the XXXXXXXXXX expert report dated July 2009
needs to be read in context of my complaints and others people’s
complaints that confirm the strength of my complaints, throughout
the UK. In other words we cannot not all be independently making
the same complaints about the same situations for there not to be a
case to answer and a need for a criminal investigation in totality
of everyone’s complaint.

As I knew that PC Heiniger was not telling the truth in my case and
the fact that to date the police and the IPCC will not release
Shorrock’s Report done on me and the Police Report into my
complaint even though other people have been given their reports
without any trouble I commissioned the most experience expert in
the UK on bird related court cases to read the facts of my case
including the evidence on Heiniger so that he could write an expert
report. The man that wrote the expert report is called XXXXXXXX and
he has been used many times by the RSPB and the police to secure
convictions over many years. Conclusively, from XXXXXXXXX’s Report
you will note that Heiniger cannot be telling the truth moreover he
did not have a licence to disturb a peregrine falcon’s nest
therefore he could not have checked the contents of the nest in the
manner in claimed in court. I enclose XXXXXXXXX’s report in full
with my comments on in red. I can supply XXXXXXXX’s without my
comments if needed. Also note the Met Office report that shows
Heiniger is not telling the truth about the weather conditions and
light levels on the date in question therefore he has to be making
his statement up. I also want the statement from the second person
that was supposed to be watching the nest with Heiniger that has
been withheld as I believe this will contradict Heiniger. Needless
to say this withheld evidence is just one of many withheld
statements.

It should also be noted that the Kielder nest site that Shorrock,
Little and Heiniger claimed that I took two peregrine falcon chicks
from has a complete record over the years at the BTO [according to
Brian Little’s statement from 1975] except the 1992 record that I
needed to show how old the chicks were in the nest Kielder nest
site to compare the age of the claimed chicks in the Kielder nest
with the two imprint chicks found in my car 2.5 miles from my home
and to prove the fact that the Kielder nest contained eggs. Given
that the only year that was missing was the year that I needed,
even though like every other year Little kept the records for 1992
in his diary, there must have been a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice by concealing the 1992 records of the Kielder
nest site to stop me proving that the two peregrine falcons found
in my car were too old to have been taken from the Kielder nest
site about 40 miles from my home [Note Little has stated that the
records go back to 1975 when the nest site was first occupied by
peregrine falcons]. This matter of fact evidence that would be easy
for the police to investigate and it is new and relevant evidence.
It should also be born in mind that if Brian Little’s diary records
for 1992 for the Kielder nest site confirmed the age of the
peregrine falcon chicks were the same age as the falcon chicks
found in my car then it would have been used against me in court as
clear proof of my guilt. It is my contention that Little’s records
confirmed that my chicks were too old therefore Brian Little did
not even disclose his records to the BTO even though he had every
other year in precisely the same circumstances. The facts are
obvious to see and easy for the police to investigate by securing
Little’s 1992 diary and interviewing the witnesses involved. If you
see the You Tube link you will note it would not have been possible
for people to have climb down to the nest site from the top of the
crag without a rope which contradicts PC Heiniger’s statement.

http://www.youtube.c.../25/v8X93Ysqs-A

The two birds found in my car in 1992 had been DNA profiled with
the parent birds [the blood was sent to Parkin and he accepts that
he received it but that is it] however this DNA profiling was
withheld even though this is the only DNA profiling that I have
requested.

Please note the BTO email below and XXXXXXXXX’S reply.
From: derekcanning xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 08 January 2010 15:06
To: xxxxxx
Subject: BTO
Dear Derek

I have now received permission to release a summary of the nest
record data
that we have located for this particular nest to you. The
information is:

1993 record 1
Date: 3.4, Eggs: 2 , Young: 0 , Status: CO (eggs cold)
Date: 28.4, Eggs: 0, Young: 0, Status: EI (outcome failure,
intentionally by
man), Comment: eggs broken by humans.

1993 record 2
Date: 4.5, Eggs: 3, Young: 0, Status: MN (male at or on nest).
Comment:
Relay afer 1st clutch broken by humans.
Date: 25.5, Eggs: 4, Young: 0, Status: FN (female at or on nest).
Date: 27.5, Eggs: 0, Young: 0, Status: EI (Failure at egg stage -
man -
intentional). Comment: Eggs stolen by humans probably weekend 26/27
May.
1994
Date: 26.4, Eggs: 1, Young: 0, Status: CO (eggs cold). Comment:
this was a
relay 1st nest at this site previously robbed.
Date: 30/4, Eggs: 2, Young: 0, Status: FN (female at or on nest).
Date: 24/5, Eggs: 0, Young: 0; Status: EI (failure at egg stage -
man -
intentional) and FV (female in vicinity of nest). Comment: nest
robbed by
humans who left hard-boiled eggs in nest after they robbed it.

I have also received permission to release summary data from
Schedule 1
report forms. We have located two report forms relating to the
nest. The
information is:

1990
1st clutch robbed. 2nd clutch - 3 eggs, 3 young, fledged 30/7.

1991
1+ eggs, 0 young fledged, comment - robbed.

I attach a copy of our terms and conditions of data requests and an
invoice
for the data request of £50 +VAT as in my email of 17 December
2009.

Best wishes

Jacquie
********************************************************
Jacquie Clark
Head of Demography
Ringing & Nest Recording - explaining population change

BTO
The Nunnery
Thetford
Norfolk IP24 2PU

Email: [email address]
Phone: 01842 750050
Fax: 01842 750030

www.bto.org/aboutBTO/cvs/jacquie_clark.htm

Keep up with ringing and nest recording on the 'Demog Blog' at
http://btoringing.blogspot.com/

Report ringed birds online at www.ring.ac

BTO Website: www.bto.org

EURING website: www.euring.org

British Trust for Ornithology
Registered Charity No 216652 (England & Wales) No SC039193
(Scotland)
Company Limited by Guarantee No 357284 (England & Wales)

Registered Office The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU

See the latest trends in bird populations on www.bto.org/birdtrends

In a message dated 08/01/2010 17:45:37 GMT Standard
Time,xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks – much as we knew already.
Importantly, is she able to say why there is no record for 1992,
which on balance seems to have been no different from all the other
years.
We know what was said in police statements regarding 1992, but the
important question is ‘does that match what was said on the BTO or
English Nature forms’. In effect BTO have failed to answer the one
question that needs answering.
The lack of anything on paper is in itself quite suggestive of
something not adding up!
Cheers
xxxxxxxx

In support of what I have just said I will clearly state the
following:

1] I have now supplied a report from the most experienced bird
expert [xxxxxxxx] in the world that supports my claim that the
police and RSPB lied in my case especially PC Heiniger of Durham
Police.

2] XXXXXXXXX has been used as an expert witness by the police for
thirty or more years in hundreds of criminal cases therefore if
they have been happy to accept his evidence when it supported them
then they have to support his evidence when it condemn them and not
insult me by not even bothering to investigate what XXXXXXX has to
say about my case.

3] XXXXXXX is totally independent of me with if anything more
sympathy towards the police therefore his large new report should
be looked into and not covered up by the police.

4] My new complaint has many different elements of new evidence in
addition to my previous complaint as new evidence has come to light
and new a person has come in the frame called Brian Little.
XXXXXXXX has confirmed how shocked he is that Brian Little lied in
court and that he withheld the vital 1992 records of the
Chapplehope Burn nest site is missing yet every other year is there
accept the one that is needed to show the age of the chicks in
question and if it had two eggs and two chicks on the date in
question. Brian Little said he had the information in his diary but
he did not bring it with him for my court case even though that was
the only year in question. Little also tried to lie in court about
marking the peregrine falcon eggs with black spirit based pen then
when his lies were politely put to him in court he changed his
story and said I could have removed the marking however this is now
found to be untrue. It is accepted that Shorrock had at this point
secretly removed half of the peregrine eggs that produce my young
peregrine falcons and his tests that confirmed none of the
peregrine falcon eggs seized from my home and entrusted to him by
the police had any of Brian Little’s black spirit based pen. The
situation is clear conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and
it must be criminally investigated by an independent party. I have
the evidence to prove what I have just said that can be supplied.

5] Without doubt the police have made no attempt to contact me to
interview me in relation to my new evidence and complaints moreover
XXXXX has not been contacted to explain his views therefore how can
the police say that my accusations are wrong if they have not even
looked into them? Given the new evidence it is insulting to say
that my complaint is repetitious as the evidence is now
overwhelming and in need of a criminal investigation and not a
police cover up. Clearly Northumbria Police are engaged in a
criminal cover up that needs to be investigated independently as
Northumbria cannot be trusted and this fact has been confirmed in
the last correspondence that I have just received. My views are
mirrored by other people in a similar situation as me.

6] It should be noted that my complaint is only the first stage of
my complaints. There is a lot more to follow.

7] My complaint must be put in context with the many other similar
complaints throughout the UK that have been made about the police
and the RSPB by totally independent people from me making the same
allegations about the same person. For example note the comments
from the XXXXXXX case from a judge that said he could not believe
Shorrock and he was liable for the criminal damage to XXXXX’s door
which in affect meant that Shorrock was a burglar. It should be
noted that Hampshire police have also refused to investigate
Shorrock’s crimes even after what the judge has said. I have also
enclosed Shorrock’s confidential report that proves Shorrock lied
to Hampshire police which is one of the reasons that I want the
police and RSPB reports into my case.

8] I have been informed that Shorrock will no longer be allowed on
police raids given his past criminal activities.

What more do you need before you act in the public interest as the
police are breaching their duty of care and conspiring to pervert
the course of justice? We are dealing with a national conspiracy to
support Shorrock in relation to pervert the course of justice and
the police are refusing to investigate.

Information request.
Has there been a memo or any instructions sent out to the police or
any government bodies not to use the RSPB [Shorrock] including not
to go on Police raids?

Have there been any instructions whether written or verbal to any
government body not to use the RSPB [Shorrock] to control evidence
given the corruption of the past?

Can we have all the information that you hold on the RSPB
[Shorrock] and their corruption?

Thank you for your help.

Derek Canning LLB [hons]

Please note the reports below of new evidence and evidence that has
been withheld and lied about

Note the newspaper article that proves the iPCC needs to be
investigated and reformed in the public interest as the
organisation is not fulfilling it's mandate to the British public.

'The worst of all outcomes'
Heralded as a force for change at its launch, the Independent
Police Complaints Commission is out of touch, ineffective and takes
the side of the police rather than the public, claims former member
John Crawley
•
•
•
• Tweet this
• John Crawley
• The Guardian, Wednesday 8 April 2009
• Article history

Clashes between police and protestors during the G20 summit in
London highlighted the sort of controversies the IPCC might have to
address. Photograph: Tim Ireland/PA
Hopes were high when the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC) was launched in April 2004 that there would now be a
reformed police complaints system - providing legal rights for
complainants - that was above all independent, so that police were
not investigating themselves. After 20 years working for a housing
and social care agency in inner-city Birmingham, I joined the IPCC,
as one of 18 new commissioners, with the aim of righting
injustices. We claimed to be the most powerful civilian oversight
body in the world, and we prepared to change the world. Five years
on, I decided to leave. So what had gone wrong?
Only around 100 IPCC investigations, plus 150 police investigations
"managed" by the IPCC, are undertaken each year, compared to 29,000
complaints. The majority of those 100 are not even complaints about
day-to-day policing, but concern incidents where Article 2 of the
Human Rights Act - the police's duty to safeguard life - may be
involved, and by law require IPCC investigation. Some, such as the
shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube in 2005 and
possibly the death last week of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests
in London, rightly attract great public concern. But the question,
"Do you have to be dead before the IPCC takes an interest in your
case?", is too near the truth.
Intrusive power
Against this trend, I managed for some years to secure resources to
initiate investigations into complaints about operational policing,
such as stop and search and unlawful detention. My investigations
into West Midlands police's excessive and inappropriate use of
section 60 searches - a highly intrusive power whereby the
constable does not have to have a "reasonable suspicion" to justify
the stop - got demonstrable results: from 2004 to 2007, the use of
this power reduced dramatically. I also gave high priority to
complainants' appeals against local police's own investigations,
including stop and search and unlawful arrest allegation cases in
the Metropolitan police.
Under the system the IPCC replaced, few complaints were
substantiated, a tiny number of officers faced discipline, and
police investigations were strung out over years. Figures from
2007/08 show that nothing much has changed under the IPCC. In that
year, just 11% of complaints were upheld, but your chances of
success varied wildly, depending on where you complained. In West
Yorkshire or Humberside, 96% of all complaints were dismissed, but
in Bedfordshire 20% were upheld. Even more worrying, just 1% of
allegations of serious assault were substantiated. And as a result
of complaints, only 15 officers lost their jobs, one was demoted,
and 24 were fined a few days' pay - a total of 0.028% of the
national workforce.
I have no wish to impugn the large majority of upright officers,
but these statistics disclose a complaints system that fails to
identify or punish the minority who abuse their office, and it
serves the decent majority ill.
There were 2,260 appeals against local police investigations of
complaints in 2007/08 - a significant measure of dissatisfaction
with a system of investigation. Fewer than one in five were upheld
by the IPCC.
The police watchdog has failed to become a complainant-focused,
public-facing and customer-serving organisation. It has hidden
itself away, choosing often remote and inaccessible offices,
avoiding face-to-face contact with the public or complainants. I
handled the West Midlands, which has the second largest police
force in the country, yet the IPCC has no office in the region,
employs virtually no one from there and, since I left, has no
commissioner resident in the region.
You can walk into any police station and make a complaint, but you
cannot walk into an IPCC office and do so. Police officers are
regular visitors to the IPCC, and staff make frequent visits to
police professional standards (complaints handling) departments to
discuss cases. High priority is afforded to staff and commissioners
attending the annual cycle of conferences organised by the variety
of policing organisations, but no comparable priority is given to
identifying and speaking at events and organisations working for
complainants' interests.
The IPCC's focus on the police, rather than the public, is evident
in its decisions. It sees itself as part of the wider "family" of
police agencies, such as the National Police Improvement Agency, HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Association of Chief Police
Officers, all under the paternalistic wing of the Home Office, the
paymaster and ringmaster.
Its 400 staff and budget (£32.2m in 2007-08) are mostly funded by
the Home Office. Full-time commissioners (board members), appointed
by the home secretary for a five-year term of office, are paid
£75,000 a year and are led by a full-time executive chair.
Commissioners must by law have no police background, and are there
to safeguard the IPCC's independence. However, former police and
customs officers fill many investigatory and management roles, and
its two chief executives have both come from the Home Office.
Bureaucratic approach
Commissioners seeking a second term must reapply for their jobs
from scratch, which inevitably compromises the independence of the
role. I concluded reluctantly that I could no longer support an
organisation producing the worst of all outcomes - timidity towards
police accountability and redress for complainants, combined with a
drawn-out bureaucratic approach that can penalise innocent police
officers, who have a cloud hanging over them sometimes for years.
We are left with a veneer of independence, but a complaints body
that is largely absent from the complaints system it oversees.
Despite its much-flaunted values, the IPCC rarely debated
fundamental questions about its strategy and priorities. The
resignation of the Police Action Lawyers Group - solicitors who
specialise in police complaints work - from the IPCC advisory board
in 2007 because it felt it had no influence, and the broader
concern about how the voice of complainants and the public could be
heard within the IPCC, were never debated.
Commissioners have become ornamental, and the pressure was to
delegate more and more to managers, including vital decisions on
whether the IPCC should get involved in a complaint investigation.
Even allegations of serious criminal assault are now routinely left
for investigation by the police, although just 1% of such
complaints are upheld by the police.
What is the taxpayer getting for a commission costing millions of
pounds? Strong lay involvement of people who bring independent
judgment is a critical ingredient, but the commission has presided
supinely over their irrelevance.
So what is to be done? I propose that four key reforms are urgently
required.
First, the chair needs to be a part-time, non-executive appointment
with the task of supporting and empowering an effective commission
that is driving the complaints system and taking the key decisions
on cases and the direction of the organisation. All commissioner
appointments should be for only one term of six or seven years,
removing the potential for reappointment to be a source of pressure
on independence.
Second, the IPCC must boost dramatically the number and range of
its own investigations, while cutting the length of its
investigations.
Third, the Commons public accounts committee recently criticised
the IPCC for having no feedback mechanism from complainants (or
police officers) on the quality of its services. It must become a
public and complainant-facing organisation, adopting an ombudsman
type of service, with the focus on proper redress for the public.
Finally, while commissioners cannot make all of the decisions, they
must take proper responsibility for investigations and appeal
decisions.
The press is littered with public concern about current police
tactics, including the way that demonstrations are handled. These
issues particularly affect younger people, and we risk yet another
disaffected generation. How the IPCC addresses what may be
increasing policing controversies associated with protest movements
will be a critical test of whether it is worth preserving or is a
failed model.
• John Crawley was a commissioner at the IPCC from 2004 to 2008

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

I am asking if you hold any information on why the police are not
prosecuting Shorrock for his crimes especially in relation to the
Chris Marshall case now that three judges three court case have
clearly stated that Shorrock has committed criminal damage and is a
burglar as he had no right to be on Chris Marshall's property and
when asked to leave by Chris Marshall he refused. See the You Tube
links below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FqNbSwRn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76H64HGWZDY

Furthermore, do you hold any more information on why Hampshire
Police are paying for the judgement against Shorrock with public in
spite of the fact that a number of judges have said that the police
are not liable but Shorrock is. I would also add that I am making
an official complaint about the activities of the police in
totality of all the complaints about Shorrock and we want the PM to
investigate as the iPCC ARE ignoring use.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Note the judge on appeal again states that Shorrock is liable so
why are the police using tax payer's money to pay a judgement
against Shorrock? The public have a right to know why their money
is being miss-used, anything else is a cover up to negate exposing
the activities of the police and Shorrock. Public servants are and
must be accountable to the public.

See the page from the appeal judgement in question. I will be
publishing the full transcript to expose they abuses of public
money and the fact there needs to be a criminal investigation into
the activities of Guy Shorrock in-totality, anything else is a
cover up therefore I would invite the Minister of Justice to set up
a criminal inquiry into the many complaints against Guy Shorrock
throughout the UK. I note the elevated words of justice spoken by
the Minister of Justice now it is time to live up to the words. To
date the Minister of Justice has ignored all of my letters
expressing our concerns. However, I have not received a single
reply in spite of detailed evidence that prove serious criminal
activities that have resulted in serious consequences.

but I just wanted to wrap the thing up. I didn't come here lightly
for fun because it's costs me an ultimate fortune, if we've had a
lot of rain in France it will cost me a hell of a lot more, it
could put months on the job.

256. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, I think
there is some doubt as to whether you received the letter, but I do
struggle with why you didn't make yourself available by telephone
or otherwise, simply to say (inaudible).

257. Mr Marshall: Well I did, I did. Well I made a point that Mr
Shorrock ... I said I cannot wait any longer before I make my
business arrangements. I mean these machines, I'll show you, I mean
you can't... this is the job. That's the river. You can't ...
they're some of the biggest earth moving machines in Europe, you
just cannot park them up, it's not a JCB or a mini-digger.

258. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, as I said,
I don't think I am satisfied that you did get that letter in
relation to the offer, and the offer has changed and it has become
more generous, that's quite obvious, and because you weren't here I
can see there's been a difficulty. But the amount seems to me to be
disproportionate. Normally you would get reasonable travel
expenses. It seems to me there could have been some savings made.
So I'm going award a global sum of £335, so it will say judgment
for (inaudible) against the defendant (inaudible) claimant... a new
total wasn't it, wasn't it, 380.37, yes?

259. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir.

260. District Judge White: 380.37, including fees, plus 335. Yes?
335?

261. Miss Cooper: Is that the previous amount Sir.

262. District Judge White: Travel expenses.

263. Miss Cooper: Yes. I think that's what you've just said.

264. District Judge White: It's got to be proportionate to the
amount (inaudible) and it's a relatively small amount of money, I
think it started off at about £75 or £80.

265. Mr Marshall: Well, perhaps you'd like to ask Mr Shorrock why
he didn't pay it.

266. District Judge White: Alright, so that's whatever that is in
total, I'll work it out while we're all here. 380.37 plus 335 is
715.37. Shall I say fourteen days?

267. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. And perhaps you could ...

268. Mr Marshall: That's what you said last time. I had to send
bailiffs in to the RSPB Headquarters to get it.

269. District Judge White: Sorry, did you say something.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

28 March 2010
Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

What has occurred to my official complaint?

Please note the enclosed court transcript that proves that Shorrock
admits his fault yet the police paid the judgement that has not
been given against them.

BEDFORD COUNTY COURT

BEFORE:

DISTRICT JUDGE WHITE

Case No: 9BK01887

Shire Hall

3 St Paul's Square

Bedford

MK40 1SQ

8th February 2010

MARSHALL EARTHMOVING

Claimant

- v -

SHORROCK

Defendant

Hearing

Compril Limited Telephone: 01642 232324 Facsimile: 01642 244001

Denmark House

169-173 Stockton Street

Middlehaven

Middlesbrough

TS2 1BY

No. of folios in transcript: 80 No. of words in transcript: 5,794

HEARING

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17.

District Judge White: Right. The case has been settled, I can see
that, because there's a cheque been offered for the full amount of
the claim, plus costs.

Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir. There seems to be an issue, I've spoken
very briefly ... District Judge White: Yes.

Miss Cooper: ... with Mr Marshall this afternoon and he doesn't
seem to have received the cheque. I don't know if he's seen a copy
of the letter, but that seems to be why we're here today.

District Judge White: (Inaudible).

Mr Marshall: (Inaudible) no money at all. The last letter I had was
from Hampshire Constabulary on 14th December stating that they were
going to send their solicitor here, basically highjack the case and
force me to accept money from the police.

District Judge White: Well, I don't think that's the case actually
because I think the letter is from (Inaudible) Masons who represent
Mr Shorrock I presume.

Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir, that's the letter of 28th January. Perhaps
I could hand a copy to Mr Marshall.

District Judge White: Yes, yes, absolutely.

Mr Marshall: I haven't received ... because I only came back from
France late last night and I've not received anything. Mr Shorrock
...

District Judge White: Well we'd better have a look at that then.

Mr Marshall: And I've just been informed that I signed for this
letter ... that I've signed for two letters ...

District Judge White: Yes.

Mr Marshall: ... by the Post Office. Well I haven't because I
haven't been in the country and I'm ... this card is the Post
Office card. I'm the only person who can possibly sign for any
letters.

District Judge White: You have a box number, don't you? Mr
Marshall: Yes.

District Judge White: How does that work?

Mr Marshall: I...

19. District Judge White: You have to go open it and collect it
from the Post Office?

20. Mr Marshall: No, no. I have to go in there and show them my
card and then they go to the box and pick up any post for me. And I
did tell Mr Shorrock that... or the RSPB that I couldn't accept any
post after 16th January and the RSPB had over a month to actually
settle up and they asked for this case to be ... I didn't want this
to go ahead, but they asked for this case to go ahead. And that's
the last communication I had, was on 16th January.

21. District Judge White: Well let me ...

22. Mr Marshall: Well, the last communication I had was 14th
December.

23. Miss Cooper: There was also a letter of 7th January.

24. District Judge White: Yes.

25. Mr Marshall: And I did notify, I'm sorry, but I did notify Mr
Shorrock on 4th of January at the very latest I had to make all my
travel arrangements and work reschedules.

26. District Judge White: Do you live abroad?

27. Mr Marshall: Sorry?

28. District Judge White: You live abroad did you say?

29. Mr Marshall: No, I'm working in France.

30. District Judge White: You're working in France?

31. Mr Marshall: Yes. It's cost me nearly £7,000 to come here
today.

32. District Judge White: £7,000?

33. Mr Marshall: I've lost five days work ...

34. District Judge White: Oh I see.

35. Mr Marshall: ... and travelling from Bordeaux and back. I've
got four days travelling.

36. District Judge White: Well I can't find the letter now and it's
not a paginated bundle.

37. Miss Cooper: Sir, I've just handed my copy to you.

38. District Judge White: (Inaudible).

39. Mr Marshall: Well I haven't had this, I'm sorry, and nobody has
signed for any post in that Post Office box, so whoever said that
someone has signed it is lying. They can't possibly have signed it.

40. District Judge White: So what's the date of that letter?

41. Miss Cooper: The first one's ... it's 28th January, Sir.

42. District Judge White: I don't think I've got that. I've got 7th
January.

43. Miss Cooper: Ah.

44. District Judge White: I thought...

45. Miss Cooper: There's one 28th January, which is what the
recorded delivery note that I have is for. Those instructing me
sent me that this morning. And there's also a letter of the 7th.
That was just sent first class post.

46. District Judge White: No, I don't think I've got 28th January.

47. Miss Cooper: Ah.

48. Mr Marshall: 28th January. (Inaudible) signed for?

49. Miss Cooper: (Inaudible). In any event, Sir, I think maybe
we're being circuitous in that the offer of settlement has been
made. The matter is ...

50. District Judge White: Yes.

51. Miss Cooper: ... whether it's (inaudible).

52. District Judge White: That's what it is, I've seen reference to
the letter, because I can tell you that, Mr Marshall, that
(Inaudible) wrote to the court on ... well two days ago actually,
in which they said ... they sent a cheque for the full amount of
the claim on 7th January. I'll just check that letter ...

53. Mr Marshall: (Inaudible).

54. District Judge White: Please find (inaudible).

55. Mr Marshall: And the lady says I've signed for it, but I
haven't because I haven't got it. There was nothing in my post box
up until 16th January.

56. District Judge White: Well there's a copy of the cheque
attached anyway.

57. Mr Marshall: Yes. I'm not (inaudible).

58. District Judge White: So you're saying you haven't had the
letter of 7th January?

59. Mr Marshall: I haven't had any letters from ... the last
communication I had was from Roger Trencher on 14th December.

60. District Judge White: It's PO Box 1823?

61. Mr Marshall: 1823. And I'm the only person with this card who
can sign for letters in that box.

62. District Judge White: And then it says "SP11 7ZN", is that your
...

63. Mr Marshall: SP11 7ZN, that's the postcode of the box from the
Post Office.

64. District Judge White: Right. Anyway, they wrote to the court,
as I said, a couple of days ago saying ... confirming that they'd
paid it. We have written on 28th January providing payment in the
full amount of 355. Oh I see, so there's a cheque, you're saying,
been sent for £310 on 7th January?

65. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. And then the second letter incorporates
the extra £40 I believe it was that Mr Marshall (inaudible).

66. District Judge White: Yes, which I haven't seen.

67. Mr Marshall: And these have all been signed for, have they,
these letters?

68. District Judge White: Well let's have a look at the signatures
then.

69. Miss Cooper: Sir, this is the ... what's provided by the Royal
Mail ...

70. District Judge White: I don't know that they provide, sometimes
it's the postman that signs for these, isn't it?

71. Mr Marshall: No. They can't possibly. Not allowed to. You can't
possibly sign for letters that go to a Post Office box.

72. Mr Marshall: Well perhaps that's to show that it's gone to the
Post Office, Sir.

73. District Judge White: Yes. I think my experience of the Royal
Mail is although you can ask for it to be signed for, they don't
always do that. I can't see a signature on this.

74. Miss Cooper: Well, I believe that's what was sent back to those
who send the letter so that...

75. District Judge White: It may well be. It's probably just their
confirmation that they posted it or something.

76. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes.

District Judge White: Have you had a look at that, have you, Mr
Marshall? Mr Marshall: Well...

District Judge White: That's just... that's what they got from the
Post Office. Mr Marshall: To say that it's been signed for?

81, District Judge White: Well I don't know. If you read it, it
just says ...

82. Mr Marshall: Recorded signed for posting receipt. I mean one of
the conditions is that they ...

District Judge White: Thank you.

Mr Marshall: ... can not possibly sign for business mail that goes
through a Post Office box.

85. District Judge White: Anyway, you haven't signed for it then
(inaudible).

86. Miss Cooper: Sir, the offer is open for acceptance if Mr
Marshall wishes to accept it.

87. District Judge White: The amount is 355.37?

88. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir.

89. District Judge White: Yes, right, is that accepted? It seems to
be (inaudible).

90. Mr Marshall: I would like some contribution towards my travel
costs for coming here today. Mr Shorrock had over a month when he
paid ... I had to send the bailiffs to the RSPB Headquarters,
because he had such contempt he wouldn't pay the ...

District Judge White: Yes.

Mr Marshall: ... travelling expenses last time.

District Judge White: I think the court fee is included in that,
isn't it, the £100 (inaudible)?

94. Miss Cooper: It is.

95. Mr Marshall: But I shouldn't have to do that sort of thing when
the judge has order Mr Shorrock to pay my travelling expenses, he
just didn't bother.

96. District Judge White: On the last occasion you mean?

97. Mr Marshall: Yes.

98. District Judge White: How much was that?

99. Miss Cooper: It was £80.

100. District Judge White: And that's included in it?

101. Miss Cooper: Indeed.

102. District Judge White: Right, what do you say about the claim
for the expenses for him being here today?

103. Miss Cooper: Sir, well the difficulty is, the first letter was
sent on 7th January and there was a reply from Mr Marshall's
company on 11th January saying that then he was away. It seems, in
any event, if those letters had been delivered, perhaps if Mr
Marshall knew that he was away he could have provided an
alternative address by which means this matter could have been
settled. And, in addition, offers were being made as far back as
December and cheques were sent to settle this matter by the police
...

104. District Judge White: Yes. (Inaudible).

105. Mr Marshall: Made out to the wrong person and for the wrong
amount. And it wasn't the police, who I'm taking action against.

106. Miss Cooper: Sir, the transcript does demonstrate that Judge
(Inaudible) had requested that somebody pay, there is no specific
direction that it be the claimant, sorry, the defendant in this
matter.

107. District Judge White: Yes.

108. Mr Marshall: The cheques were made out to the wrong person and
for the wrong amount.

109. Miss Cooper: Sir, there was a letter sent to a different... to
the right person and it was sent ... the letter was sent three
times ... three letters were sent, I do apologise. So, it's fair to
say that the defendant, in my submission, has made every possible
attempt to settle this matter and prevent today going forward. If
an alternative address had been provided then perhaps that could
have been done. So, I would strongly contest any application for
costs today on the basis that the ...

Mr Marshall: I... I...

District Judge White: Wait a minute. (Inaudible) finish.

Mr Marshall: Sorry.

Miss Cooper: ... on the basis that the defendant has acted
reasonably in all the circumstances and has tried several times to
settle this matter.

114. District Judge White: Okay. (Inaudible) Mr Marshall.

115. Mr Marshall: May I say the cheque was sent to the wrong person
and for the wrong amount.

District Judge White: (Inaudible). This is ... this is the earlier
cheque, isn't it? Mr Marshall: All three cheques were for the wrong
amount.

District Judge White: Apart from the one that ... 355, which is the
right amount?

119. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. Sir, I believe when the police cheque
was sent the amount wasn't an issue and subsequently the extra
amount, for example, for the key had been added, so thus the amount
has been changing as we've been going ...

120. District Judge White: No, I understand that.

121. Mr Marshall: Why did it go from £74 ... just when I asked him
to pay me £74 to what do you say it is now? Why did you let it get
to that stage? All Mr Shorrock had to do was send me £74. And then
he had the judgment set aside because he wanted prove his innocence
and come here today. I had to book ... we had to change all our
work schedules, I've got proof of ferry bookings made on 4th
January before you've said that you've written to me.

122. District Judge White: So, tell me the dates you've been away
then?

123. Mr Marshall: I actually left ... I had to make all my
bookings, I've got confirmation here, booking date, 41 January, and
I told Mr Shorrock this, I've had to book two ferry crossings, a
return one.

124. District Judge White: So have you been away for three weeks or
two weeks or?

125. Mr Marshall: I left on 16th January. And there's the ferry
port confirmation.

126. District Judge White: So, 16th January you went to France,
yes?

127. Mr Marshall: Yes. And I came back yesterday.

128. District Judge White: I see. And then ... are you going back
to work tomorrow?

129. Mr Marshall: Yes, I am, yes. Saturday night the booking is,
but I'm going to try and change it to tomorrow.

130. District Judge White: Yes.

131. Mr Marshall: Because I've got to get accommodation in this
country otherwise.

132. District Judge White: I see. Obviously...

133. Mr Marshall: I've got photographs of the job, if you're
interested.

134. District Judge White: No, no, no. (Inaudible).

135. Mr Marshall: I mean it's (inaudible).

136. District Judge White: Right. So the hearing ... sorry, the
letter that was on January, I'm satisfied it was sent but you're
saying you didn't get it.

7th

/

137. Mr Marshall: Yes, I can understand that. Well, I can prove I
didn't get it. Well, I can prove it wasn't signed for by me, and
nobody else is allowed to sign for anything without that card.

138. District Judge White: No, I understand what you're saying.
Then there's another letter, you weren't there then of course, but
in theory you should be able to pick it up on the 16th assuming it
was there.

139. Mr Marshall: Nothing in the box on the morning of the 16th,
absolutely nothing.

140. District Judge White: On the 28th there's another letter sent,
and you are here, but this time you didn't get that either.

141. Mr Marshall: I'm not... on 28th January?

142. District Judge White: That's right.

143. Mr Marshall: No, I didn't come back until last night. On 28th
January I've receipts for buying stock in France.

144. District Judge White: I've put here you were away working on
16th January, you returned yesterday.

145. Mr Marshall: Yes, that's right, quite right.

146. District Judge White: So really it only boils down to one
letter, doesn't it, which is the 7th?

147. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir, but in any event, in my submission,
if the letter of the 7th was sent, there as plenty of time
beforehand, the police letters are at (inaudible).

148. Mr Marshall: (Inaudible) couldn't have possibly legally have
paid the cheque in, because the cheque was made out to me
personally.

149. Miss Cooper: If I could refer you, Sir, to the second letter
of the police, it's behind tab 2, which is the letter dated 9th
December.

150. District Judge White: Yes. I did read through some of these.

151. Miss Cooper: (Inaudible) please now find enclosed a cheque
payable to Marshall Earthmoving. Is that...

152. Mr Marshall: For the wrong amount. There was no VAT listed on
it.

153. District Judge White: It doesn't actually say how much it's
for, does it?

154. Miss Cooper: No. It doesn't Sir but...

155. Mr Marshall: It was totally the wrong amount. I cannot... this
is my business. I can not...

156. District Judge White: Well the letter back says £198.
(Inaudible) 10th December. They sent it again on 14th December for
£198. And then it moves on to 7th January doesn't it? Which ...

157. Mr Marshall: In the meantime I can prove and I did notify Mr
Shorrock on probably 14th December that I would have to be away, if
he didn't settle up within the next 14 days I would have to make my
bookings and reschedule the work arrangements, which I did on 4
January.

158. Miss Cooper: Sir, the difficulty is that there is a letter
from ... on the 11th saying (inaudible).

159. Mr Marshall: So the difference to me is £7,000, near enough,
and a hell of a journey.

160. Miss Cooper: 11th January, after the letter of the 7th.

161. Mr Marshall: And the audacity of it all is that Mr Shorrock
still denies he did any damage to my property, and I've sent the
court a video and I've got a copy here.

162. District Judge White: I haven't got that.

163. Miss Cooper: Sorry?

164. District Judge White: I haven't got the letter of 11th
January.

165. Miss Cooper: Bear with me one second.

166. District Judge White: A very random bundle this. I've got
letters back from Marshall's ... it's a lady, isn't it?

167. Mr Marshall: Yes. Mrs Rosebury, my secretary

168. District Judge White: I've got the letters here for the
Hampshire Police, but I haven't got any ... you're probably
(inaudible) are you?

169. Miss Cooper: Yes Sir.

170. District Judge White: I haven't got that.

171. Miss Cooper: Just one moment. I'm having difficulty at the
moment.

172. Mr Marshall: The situation is absolutely ridiculous over £74.

173. District Judge White: Well, it's a lot more than that, isn't
it, now for various reasons.

174. Mr Marshall: Well, Mr Shorrock would not pay me and he would
not admit that he was trespassing and damaged my lock. He tried to
force his way into my office. He could have phoned me. He's got my
mobile number.

175. District Judge White: Ah. I've found it. It's nowhere near it
should be. Is this the one ... oh no, that's the RSPB. I thought
I'd' found it. Unfortunately not. Thank you. Right. (Inaudible)
same one.

176. Mr Marshall: He's extremely lucky so far I haven't pursued him
for trespassing, the police and Judge (Inaudible) has now admitted
that he was trespassing.

177. District Judge White: Mr Marshall is now not in a position to
receive

communications until his return f travelling directly to the court
case.

communications until his return from abroad on 3rd February when he
will be

178. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir, that was sent on the 11th. That first
letter was sent on the 7th. In my submission ...

179. District Judge White: Doesn't refer to the 7th (inaudible)?

180. Miss Cooper: No, it doesn't, Sir, but my submission is ...
that letter was clearly sent, whether it was received obviously is
being denied, but the point is that if the ... if Mr Marshall was
going away, in the interests of resolving the matter, an
alternative address could have been provided or perhaps alternative
arrangements for picking up any post, and given the significant
attempts to settle that had been made in the past, it wouldn't be
reasonable on all the circumstances to award to costs (inaudible).

181. Mr Marshall: I wasn't expecting any more post, because Mr
Trencher said he was going to come here and highjack the court
case, basically. I certainly wasn't expecting Mr Shorrock to go and
do something like (inaudible) fighting over £74.

182. District Judge White: (Inaudible) the most bizarre situation
I've ever come across. Who's paying for this?

183. ?: Agree.

184. District Judge White: (Inaudible). So, looking at the history
of it, there was ...

185. Mr Marshall: Well, why was it left from 14th December ... why
was it left until 11th January before he contacts me and attempted
to pay me?

186. District Judge White: Let's have a little look, yes, it all
could have finished before Christmas, couldn't it?

187. Mr Marshall: It could easily ... what... fourteen ... nearly
three weeks to do it.

188. District Judge White: Hampshire saying ... Police saying
here's the cheque, we can pay on your ... on his behalf, that's no
problem. And then the next step is you send a letter, which Mr
Marshall's saying he didn't receive, he doesn't mention it in his
letter dated 11th January, which supports the contention that he
possibly didn't actually receive it, and then he says I'm not here
until 4th February or 3rd February, not in a position to receive
communications.

189. Mr Marshall: I mean I've had to pay for this hearing even in
advance.

190. District Judge White: Well, has the hearing fee been included
in the (inaudible).

191. Miss Cooper: As far as I'm aware, Sir, yes.

192. District Judge White: How much did you pay for the hearing?

193. Mr Marshall: Well, I sent two cheques actually because the
first one (inaudible) just before I went away wasn't ... it was
£25, that was what I should have paid, but I did send a cheque and
I assumed you'd got one of them. I just (inaudible).

194. District Judge White: No, it hasn't been included anyway.

195. Mr Marshall: Sorry?

196. District Judge White: It hasn't been included. You haven't
included that so. The hearing fee was £25 you think, probably was,
yes.

197. Mr Marshall: Yes, but I sent two cheques, but I assume that
you'll send one back.

198. District Judge White: You'll get one back. Well, if you're
accurate they have to. So (inaudible) twenty-five anyway. So that's
...

199. Miss Cooper: Very well Sir.

200. Mr Marshall: I did tell Mr Shorrock that if he didn't pay
before ... in that twenty days, he's got it in a letter somewhere,
that I would pursue him for loss of earnings and travelling, if
this court case goes ahead.

201. Miss Cooper: (Inaudible).

202. District Judge White: 380.37.

203. Miss Cooper: Thank you.

204. District Judge White: What are ... what is the amount you're
claiming for the travel and loss or earnings? I mean loss of
earnings is a bit of red herring to be honest.

205. Mr Marshall: I can't claim loss of earnings because it's small
claims.

206. District Judge White: Yes.

207. Mr Marshall: You know?

208. District Judge White: (Inaudible) pounds maximum anyway, and
that's not being able to work on the day. Right.

209. Mr Marshall: Return trip, I done 700 ... oh no ... a total
round trip to Bedford, I've done 1,114 mile.

210. District Judge White: How did you get here then?

211. Mr Marshall: Sony?

212. District Judge White: You drove all the way from where?

213. Mr Marshall: I drove from Bor ... I've got all the ...

214. District Judge White: And the cost of that is how much?

215. Mr Marshall: Well you pay ... they pay by the mile, but I've
got all of the toll charges, I've got a receipt for everything,
which can be ...

District Judge White: How much is it? Tell me how much it is.

Mr Marshall: Right. I don't know because it's how much ever you
pay. I spent 63.40 Euros, 63.40.

218. District Judge White: No, no. How much is the mileage? How
much is your claim, that's what I'm asking you?

219. Mr Marshall: Well, you paid me 40p last time.

220. District Judge White: Let's assume it's40p, how much is it
then?

221. Mr Marshall: Right. £445.60p. I've got two ferry crossings at
£154.

222. District Judge White: Two ferry crossings, you mean a return
trip?

223. Mr Marshall: A return, yes, I'm going back tomorrow night if I
can, Saturday night, which I've already paid for, I've got receipts
for. I've got toll charges of 63.40 cents, in Euros, which is equal
roughly a pound to a Euro. I've got receipts for one hotel in
France which I had to stay overnight, 92 Euros.

224. District Judge White: Why did you stay in a hotel?

225. Mr Marshall: Because I couldn't make it from Bordeaux to the
ferry without an overnight crossing.

226. District Judge White: Yes.

227. Mr Marshall: And I've got two nights in bed and breakfast in
Dunstable, last night and tonight, and that's evening meal, bed and
breakfast. And that's £160. And that's without what I've lost...

228. District Judge White: Right, tell me about your French work,
how long have you been working in France since?

229. Mr Marshall: Probably two year ... nearly three years now. I
don't always work in France.

230. District Judge White: No. When you do, how long do you work
there for?

231. Mr Marshall: Three, four months at a time.

232. District Judge White: Right. So why couldn't you arrange the
court hearing so that you were in England rather than have to come
back from France?

233. Mr Marshall: Because the court hearing was arranged for me. Mr
Shorrock ...

234. District Judge White: Yes, but why didn't you say, I'm in
France, can I arrange it for another day?

235. Mr Marshall: I did. I did to the judge and he said, well I
can't tell you when it will be. I said, well...

236. District Judge White: I know, but having got the date, why
didn't you write to the court and say, I'm in France, can I have
another date?

237. Mr Marshall: We had. Mrs Rosebury did.

238. District Judge White: To whom, to the court? I don't see that.

239. Mr Marshall: Well, she said I'm unavailable (inaudible). I
mean I can not keep coming back here. I've got to do some work.

240. Miss Cooper: I haven't seen a letter.

241. District Judge White: To whom? To the court or to (inaudible)?

242. Mr Marshall: I'm sorry, Sir, but I didn't quite understand. I
can't...

243. District Judge White: I'm trying to understand why you didn't
ask for the court date to suit your work arrangements abroad?

244. Mr Marshall: Well, I don't know when I'll finish the job.
We're diverting a river. I've got photographs of the job. I don't
know when ...

245. District Judge White: Well how long is it? Years or months?

246. Mr Marshall: Well months.

247. District Judge White: Right, so you could easily say I'll be
available in July or August?

Mr Marshall: I don't know. District Judge White: Well sometime this
year. Mr Marshall: I could have said, yes, let's put it off.
District Judge White: Yes.

Mr Marshall: But I just ... you know, I didn't really think I could
it off, to be quite honest, I thought it was ridiculous that it was
going through ... going ahead when Mr Shorrock had from 14th
December to 4 January to settle up, and that was ample time.

253. District Judge White: Right, any comment?

254. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. In relation to the letter of 14th
December, no comment was received back in relation to that letter,
so obviously it would take a while to decide exactly how to proceed
and what was going on in any event, and how to proceed thereafter.
Also there must be a duty to mitigate any form of loss,
particularly with a small claim in terms of travel expenses. And in
my submission there must have been some way of this being listed in
a more convenient fashion and for Mr Marshall to take action to
have done that. In terms of the costs, Sir, itself, in my
submission, permitting that, those three hotels all in all plus the
two ferry crossings are unreasonable in the circumstances, given
those factors and given the claimant's various attempts to settle
in the background, that any duty to mitigate has not been taken and
thus if any travel expenses were to be awarded they should be kept
to the bare minimum, as they were last time.

255. Mr Marshall: I wasn't paid enough last time actually because
they got the mileage wrong. The judge said ... I wasn't expecting
mileage, the mileage from Hampshire up to here was seventeen miles
further each way, I know it's not much,

Further to our complaint in relation to the police abusing tax
payer’s money I would add the following:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

Note the judge on appeal again states that Shorrock is liable so
why are the police using tax payer's money to pay a judgement
against Shorrock? The public have a right to know why their money
is being miss-used, anything else is a cover up to negate exposing
the activities of the police and Shorrock. Public servants are and
must be accountable to the public.

See the page from the appeal judgement in question. I will be
publishing the full transcript to expose they abuses of public
money and the fact there needs to be a criminal investigation into
the activities of Guy Shorrock in-totality, anything else is a
cover up therefore I would invite the Minister of Justice to set up
a criminal inquiry into the many complaints against Guy Shorrock
throughout the UK. I note the elevated words of justice spoken by
the Minister of Justice now it is time to live up to the words. To
date the Minister of Justice has ignored all of my letters
expressing our concerns. However, I have not received a single
reply in spite of detailed evidence that prove serious criminal
activities that have resulted in serious consequences.

but I just wanted to wrap the thing up. I didn't come here lightly
for fun because it's costs me an ultimate fortune, if we've had a
lot of rain in France it will cost me a hell of a lot more, it
could put months on the job.

256. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, I think
there is some doubt as to whether you received the letter, but I do
struggle with why you didn't make yourself available by telephone
or otherwise, simply to say (inaudible).

257. Mr Marshall: Well I did, I did. Well I made a point that Mr
Shorrock ... I said I cannot wait any longer before I make my
business arrangements. I mean these machines, I'll show you, I mean
you can't... this is the job. That's the river. You can't ...
they're some of the biggest earth moving machines in Europe, you
just cannot park them up, it's not a JCB or a mini-digger.

258. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, as I said,
I don't think I am satisfied that you did get that letter in
relation to the offer, and the offer has changed and it has become
more generous, that's quite obvious, and because you weren't here I
can see there's been a difficulty. But the amount seems to me to be
disproportionate. Normally you would get reasonable travel
expenses. It seems to me there could have been some savings made.
So I'm going award a global sum of £335, so it will say judgment
for (inaudible) against the defendant (inaudible) claimant... a new
total wasn't it, wasn't it, 380.37, yes?

259. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir.

260. District Judge White: 380.37, including fees, plus 335. Yes?
335?

261. Miss Cooper: Is that the previous amount Sir.

262. District Judge White: Travel expenses.

263. Miss Cooper: Yes. I think that's what you've just said.

264. District Judge White: It's got to be proportionate to the
amount (inaudible) and it's a relatively small amount of money, I
think it started off at about £75 or £80.

265. Mr Marshall: Well, perhaps you'd like to ask Mr Shorrock why
he didn't pay it.

266. District Judge White: Alright, so that's whatever that is in
total, I'll work it out while we're all here. 380.37 plus 335 is
715.37. Shall I say fourteen days?

267. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. And perhaps you could ...

268. Mr Marshall: That's what you said last time. I had to send
bailiffs in to the RSPB Headquarters to get it.

269. District Judge White: Sorry, did you say something.

270. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes, perhaps if we could have clarification
as to exactly where it should be sent.

271. District Judge White: Yes.

272. Miss Cooper: And who it should be payable for, just so
(inaudible).

273. Mr Marshall: To that box number, to the box number. Could I
please ask that you add VAT to that? The RSPB can get it back.

274. District Judge White: Sorry? VAT, no. I'm not adding VAT. It's
not a vatable item.

275. Mr Marshall: It's vatable to me because it's income. I've got
to pay a proportion of that as VAT, because it's claimed through
the business.

276. Miss Cooper: Sir, VAT has been added, that's part of the
settlement figure because Mr Marshall requested it last time ...

277. District Judge White: No, I understand that

278. Miss Cooper: ... but in my mind there's no reason to add it on
to the judgment figure. I have never experienced that in any form
of judgment before.

279. District Judge White: No, I haven't either, so no I'm not. In
terms of the address, yes, it's going to be?

280. Mr Marshall: PO Box 1823.

281. District Judge White: Yes.

282. Mr Marshall: Andover, Hants. And any cheques to be to Marshall
Earthmoving, not to Mr Marshall or C R Marshall.

283. Miss Cooper: Marshall Earthmoving.

284. Mr Marshall: Yes.

285. District Judge White: Well that's the claimant anyway, isn't
it?

286. Mr Marshall: Sorry?

287. District Judge White: That is the name of the claimant.

288. Mr Marshall: Yes, yes.

289. District Judge White: (Inaudible) correct.

290. Miss Cooper: And the postcode, SP11 7ZN, is that right?

291. Mr Marshall: 7ZN,yes.

292. District Judge White: And hopefully everybody can draw a line
under it now.

293. Miss Cooper: Thank you Sir.

294. Mr Marshall: Thank you very much.

295. District Judge White: Thank you.

296. Miss Cooper: Sir, do you wish me to take the bundle back?

297. District Judge White: Oh if you wouldn't mind.

298. Mr Marshall: Sir, would it be possible I could have the video
back?

299. District Judge White: Is that your video, is it?

300. Mr Marshall: Yes.

301. District Judge White: Well, we couldn't play it. Is this
yours?

302. Mr Marshall: Yes.

303. District Judge White: I'll check it is yours. I'm sure it is
yours. You haven't got a video, have you, Miss Cooper?

304. Miss Cooper: No Sir.

305. Mr Marshall: I did send one to the RSPB (inaudible).

306. District Judge White: (Inaudible) their own video. I mean
(inaudible) something different.

307. Mr Marshall: Okay. Thank you.

End of Transcription

We hereby certify that this is a verbatim transcript of the hearing
heard on 4th February 2010.

Compril Limited.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

So the IPCC corruption that I am complaining about is above the
prime minister and everyone else?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

House of Commons,
London, SW1A 0AA
[email address]
Nick Hardwick
Independent Police Complaints Commission
5th Floor
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Dear Guy Opperman MP and Nick Hardwick the IPCC,
Reference: the Corrupt IPCC and the need for an investigation
Further to our recent meeting and my letters I Derek Canning on
behalf of the British Public and various people whose names can be
supplied who I represent would state that given the enclosed
evidence against the IPCC, that has just been released via the
following hyperlink
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ac...,
there cogently needs to be questions asked in Parliament about the
conduct of the IPCC, there must be a public inquiry into the
incorrect activities of the IPCC, to be polite and the many people
who have been let down by the IPCC must have their complaints
revisited including my complaint that was a complete whitewash and
criminal cover up that did not investigate the evidence that I
supplied including an expert’s report from a world leading expert
that had been used by the police and RSPB for thirty years without
hesitation, until I used him.
It should be also noted that I have sent a letter to the IPCC last
year that has been resent 7 times yet I am still waiting for a
reply. I rightly find this most sinister as I have supplied in the
letter documents that cogently prove that Northumbria police are
not being truthful with the IPCC and yet the IPCC have allowed
Northumbria Police not to investigate my complaints no matter what
the facts are screaming in the face of the IPCC. Very simply put,
if I am wrong or lying then show me where I am wrong or lying and
report me to the police to be investigated however do not just shut
the door in my face and ignore me when I am supplying conclusive
courts transcript and police statements supported by the world
leading expert’s report done a great afford over many months that
matter of fact proves there has been a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice and the police covering up the crime as it
involves their officers. Turkeys will never vote for Christmas
unless the menu is changed. What we want now is transparency and an
unbiased investigation in totality of everyone’s complaint by one
independent body looking to expose the truth behind the corruption
of the police and RSPB. A good start would be to un-blacklist my
email address so I can email the IPCC to reaffirm our complaints
and to reply to my letters with answers to my questions and that of
others who I represent.
As I have already stated to my MP it should be questioned why the
IPCC have repeatedly refused to supply the information that they
hold on me in relation to various correspondence generated by the
police, the RSPB, Defra, the police report into my complaint and
so. For an organisation like the IPCC to withhold my personal data
in itself should set alarm bells ringing with a paroxysm given the
fact that if there is nothing to hide by an organisation that is
there to help me and other members of the public then why conceal
the truth from me and others? Furthermore, the many times that the
IPCC have allowed the police not to investigate complaints needs to
looked into and the complaints reopened in the public interest in
situations where the complainant is still complaining that they
have not received justice. I am ready to supply conclusive evidence
to the IPCC that prove an individual from the RSPB has conspired to
pervert the course of justice with the express help of the police
or by the fact the police have turned a blind eye. We would like to
have a meeting with the head of the IPCC so we can express our
genuine concerns and to set in motion a criminal investigation.
Please clearly note and consider they enclosed evidence just
released by the IPCC that proves that the IPCC is a vast waste of
public money that cannot be justified given the conduct of the
IPCC, even more significantly they are in breach of their duty of
care to the British Public [me and the people who I represent] and
there is an overwhelming need for a public inquiry into the way the
IPCC repeatedly let complainants down to protect corrupt the member
of the RSPB at the heart of our complaints and the police and to
negate embarrassment in relation to the police and RSPB not to
mention prosecutions.
I want my complaints and those that I represent correctly
investigated and the real criminals prosecuted. It is unacceptable
to send two CID officers to my home to tell me they accept what I
am saying is not lies but to stop publishing the evidence that I
have accumulated over the years on the internet as it is
embarrassing a member of the RSPB. Instead of sending four police
officers to tell me to stop writing to a judge’s private home to
inform the judge how he was lied to I would ask the police to
investigate our complaints and explain where we our wrong and if
they cannot show where we are wrong then prosecute the real
criminals in this national conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice. As stated if what I am saying is correct then the evidence
must be investigated correctly and if I telling the truth then the
people who have lied and perverted the course of justice in the
various cases that I am dealing with should be prosecuted and if I
am not telling the truth then I should be prosecuted for
harassment. Given the overwhelming weight of evidence that I have
supplied I would welcome the challenge to justify my position on
behalf of the people that I represent and myself.
The Police Action Lawyer Group [PALG] has clearly supported what we
have been saying about the IPCC over the years. Given that this
respectable organisation of solicitor has a remit is to be help and
work hand and hand with the IPCC the enclosed documents from the
PALG condemning the IPCC must precipitate an investigation into the
IPCC. A hundred solicitors from the PALG cannot be wrong. The fact
the PALG have chosen to walk out on mass on the IPCC should speaks
volumes. Furthermore if a victim of the police does not stand a
chance with the help of solicitors then what chance does a person
stand who does not have a solicitor to help him or her?
Nick Hardwick I have noted with interest that your letter in
response to the condemning complaint by the Police Action Lawyer
Group does not actually address the fundamental question of why
people are being denied justice by the IPCC. It would seem that you
however admit that more needs to be done and there has been
mistakes made in the past that have caused concern. There have been
mistakes made in the past however you seem to want to buried the
mistakes and start again however that does need address the needs
of my case and those that I represent even though the complaints go
back to the bad old days as we want justice and not to be swept
under the IPCC carpet so not to embarrass the IPCC. If we could
have a meeting with you we would be delighted to express our
concerns. As the Police Action Lawyer Group have no reason to lie
or cover things up unlike the IPCC please supply all the
information that you hold on what has been done to address the
complaints of the Police Action Lawyer Group.
It is time to live up to the fine words spoken by our MPs and the
IPCC in relation to helping they ignored and people that have been
victimised. Up to now words are cheap and meaningless as action is
needed. I look forward to your response as I am one of the ignored
people that you claim to want to help along with the people that I
represent

Yours with kind regards.

Derek Canning LLB[hons]

,