BRIAN PEAD RELEASED from yet another unlawful arrest – after less than 24 hours (the legal limit)!

Updates will soon be found on Lambeth Child Abuse and Cover Up.

THANK YOU if you made that call to the Police!

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Abuse Survivors, Brian Pead aka Freeman and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to BRIAN PEAD RELEASED from yet another unlawful arrest – after less than 24 hours (the legal limit)!

  1. len lawrence says:

    Well done Sabine Slowly the tide is turning Best Wishesleonard LawrenceDate: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:42:36 +0000 To: bae146@hotmail.co.uk

  2. Stanley Embling says:

    Great News of this release Sabine; hopefully Brian Pead will be able to throw some light onto the GLC Lambeth Brothel (Room 96,) also of regular users possibly issued with pass keys to help back his claims as detailed in his book!

  3. Michael Barnes says:

    From Peter B 17 Mar 13

    To Sabine,

    Hi,

    I copied your post re making a phone call to the Police Station to another site and this was one of the replies to the post :

    Quote:

    Is this the same chap?

    Brian Pead, aged 56, of Days Lane, Sidcup, was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court in December of attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity.

    He was cleared of a second charge of indecent exposure.

    In his defence, Pead claimed his contacts with the girl had been part of research for his job as a child counsellor with an agency in Hackney.

    He has since been sacked.

    Pead believed he was chatting on-line to a 14-year-old girl, and in a series of explicit conversations, offered her 300 to have sex with him.

    But he had been caught in a police sting, and the teenager was actually a woman police officer.

    Unquote

    I know there are two sides to a story, is this the same guy and do you have a link on the web for his side of the story.

    Regards

    Peter B

    Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:42:32 +0000 To: venirdenovo@hotmail.com

    • Yes, it’s the same guy. I knew him from one of his hearings in the Royal Courts and visited him twice in the cell below the Inner London Crown Court, besides picking him up from HMP Thameside. I also accompanied him to two solicitors. I publish http://www.nationalinquiry.wordpress.com to support his case as an ‘icon’ for
      1. survivors of abuse
      2. whistleblowers of paedophilia
      3. victims of Police Forces.

  4. S.Barnes says:

    To Peter B.
    In replying, I am making an assumption that you are a bona fide member of the public attempting to see justice and not merely a police officer/ lawyer perpetuating nonsense against an innocent man.
    That said, YES, it IS the same chap. At no time had Brian Pead THOUGHT or BELIEVED that he was chatting with a girl. He was attempting to smoke out what he believed was a paedophile (he was, at that time, undertaking a course on child sexual abuse and was therefore familiar with the modus operandi of such people). On 15 May 2008, at a friend’s house, the ‘girl’ messaged him and he said “You are a fake! F*** off!” On 31 July 2008, the police unlawfuly searched his friend’s house (the entire search lasted just 10 minutes), seized the computer, removed it without putting it in an evidence bag and BURNT OUT THE HARD DRIVE before returning the computer 4 months later (not in an evidence bag). There was NO POLICE STING – conduct further research about FACEPARTY.COM and the unlawful and illegal activity Brian Pead was exposing there. Furthermore, Brian was never a CHILD counsellor at OFF CENTRE in Hackney, from where the police seized his work computer and unlawfully removed ALL of his research data. Lastly, Brian Pead’s PNC record (he actually has two – work that out!) shows he was guilty (allegedly) of “Causing or inciting a child under 13 etc) which again is clearly wrong and does not match the newspaper reports. Peter did you ever ask yourself how the papers got hold of this story when there were no reporters in court because of reporting restrictions? That’s right! Stories such as this emanate from SCOTLAND YARD itself! Write a Freedom of information Act to Scotland Yard and how them how many press officers they use/ employ. The answer will stagger you. But, crucially, here is the offence from the Government’s own legal website: (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/10)

    Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity:
    1. A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if :
    (a) he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity.
    (b) the activity is sexual, and
    (c) either –
    (I) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
    (ii) B is under 13.

    You do not have to be a lawyer to see that Brian Pead cannot be guilty of the crime. He did not intend to meet anyone (he gave the ‘girl’ false mobile phone numbers when SHE suggested meeting); he told the ‘girl’ “You are a fake! F*** off!” which shows he had no INTENTION (the mens rea element of the alleged crime). He had written an account of these conversations in his personal journals and these show in great detail how he always knew it was a male officer (not female as the police like to claim).
    But – most importantly – to incite someone, there has to be a SOMEONE, that is, another person (aged under 16 or under 13). Since no such person ever existed, Brian Pead cannot be guilty of the crime. (He has an Appeal application currently with the CCRC.)
    At Brian’s trial, a Juror asked the Judge “Are you saying that we cannot find this man guilty if there never was a victim?” and the Judge replied, “Yes, I am saying that. The law requires a victim.” How then did the Jury – which was not sworn in according to due process (look up Archbold) – return a verdict of 10-2 against an innocent man at 3.40pm on 23 December 2009 which was the last day of the Michaelmas Term before the Christmas holidays? Why did the Judge refuse to allow the Jury more time to consider its verdict? Why did he refuse to allow a new Jury in the New Year? Why had two cases been unlawfully Joined when Joinder had been previously refused by Judge Byers at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009?
    Peter – and others – you REALLY need to do your homework and ask SENSIBLE questions, not do a “cut and paste” and think that you have presented “both sides of a story”. You have not, but in cutting and pasting, you have, in fact, committed libel against Brian Pead.
    Brian Pead IS a dangerous man – but not sexually or violently. He is dangerous because he is an intelligent man and the author of 10 books, including the entire history of Liverpool Football Club from 1892. He is dangerous because he has integrity and courage. He cannot abide corruption or deceit. Thus the corrupt police and judiciary in his case conspired to remove his website “www.allaroundjustice.com” because he had exposed their corruption. Furthermore, he alleges that there must be some considerable concerns about those involved in his case regarding THEIR sexual proclivities against children. (“I’m a paedophile but I’ll accuse you of it because then people won’t be looking at me”.)
    THERE WAS NO VICTIM in Brian’s unlawful trial It was all part of Scotland Yard’s smoke and mirrors to cover up their unlawful activity on Faceparty.com. Try Googling “Faceparty child sex abuse” and “Faceparty liquidation” and see what returns and conduct PROPER research, not the “cut and paste” routine of armchair lawyers.
    Brian Pead’s latest book about this case is called “For Whom the Bell Tolled”. (Bell being the name of Brian’s corrupt barrister who failed to call Geoffrey Bacon – the friend whose computer was unlawfully seized) to Court as a Witness; who failed to adduce 125 exhibits in court; who failed to inform the Jury that Brian Pead has an interest in the subject of child abuse because he was abused in a children’s home). Rather than quick “cut and paste” attempts at justice, Peter, may I suggest you conduct thorough research of your own before perpetrating libel, because that it what you have done with your cut and paste. You ask for other links. Try:
    http://lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com
    http://www.brianpeadisinnocent.com
    http://www.allaroundjustice.com
    The latter website was unlawfully removed by the authorities after Brian “named names” of the corrupt barrister on it and exposed the fact of his unlawful trial in which the JURY WAS NOT SWORN IN.
    In closing, Peter, it’s great that you at least appear not to take things at face value, but it’s poor that you appear to think a quick cut and paste presents “both sides of a story”. But go to the Crown Prosecution website itself and you will see that Brian Pead CANNOT POSSIBLY BE GUILTY of the crime. His only ‘crime’ was to expose wrongdoing at Lambeth Council and on Faceparty.com (which was liquidated at the time of his arrest – bit of a co-incidence don’t you think?).

  5. john c malcolm says:

    It seems to me that if you try uncover wrongdoing by the great and the good and the “powers that be” you run the risk of being framed and then lied about behind your back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s