"The victim was made to feel as bad as the perpetrators, and that can't be right"

Sergeant Christopher Pitfield

He showed that a section of an IPCC report had been fabricated, but failed to then check the rest of the report. later he used this report against me, seemingly oblivious of the fact that he himself had shown that it contained fabrications.

In desperation, I has sent the police £ 300 to be used as expenses in telling me what I had done to break the law. Pitcroft came round to my address and gave me 50 pounds and an expired cheque. I pointed out the time that the cehque was expired, which seemed to go over his head, and this was confirmed when he later talked about giving me 100 pounds.

There was confusion about which monies, he had returned, so he came around to my address again and got me to sign something which, on reflection was incorrect, but in any case was not vastly important - it just concerned which person I had sent the 100 pounds to. One thing was obvious from these proceedings anyway - the police had had more than £ 100 of my money.

Again, later it seemed that this had gone over his head as well, when he met my claims that the police still had some of my money with the counter-claim that he had given it back to me (he had given me back, by then, 50 pounds plus a piece of paper that was an expired cheque).

On both of these vists, he had seemingly little idea of what I was upset about. He didn't even know the name of the other party.

When I addressed what I really want, i.e. information about what I had done to break the law, he had no idea. I mentioned the first letter (the logical place to start) which was just a one-liner, so

Matthew, could you bear witness to the continual door slamming?

After thinking about it a bit, he said

That by itself is not against the law, it is the whole context that is relevant

And that as fas we got, because he had no further idea of what I had done. (Even what he said contradicted the thoughts of another police officer (Inspector Mark Brearley, see below) who is of the opinion that the sentence above is quite definitely against the law by itself

He did also utter one statement which I think is a bit dodgy. When I pojnted out that these letters in question were stolen, included one letter which had been sent recorded delivery, he replied that people are allowed to steal mail, if they think it contains material that they don't like.

(Acting) Inspector Mark Brearley

(Acting) Inspector Mark Brearley rang me just before Christmas 2015.

He started off by stating that I had called the other party a "bastard", and had sent abusive communications to his family. None of this is true.

This is especially ironic since the other party had consistently referred to me as a bastard (several hundred times over the whole sorry peiod)

I told him that, in line with my basic democratic rights, I wanted to know what I had done to break the law. And to this end, it would be logical to follow a chronoligical oder and deal with the first letter first, which read :

Matthew, could you bear witness to the continual door slamming?

To this, Brearley replied : "Haven't you heard what I just said". I asked him the same question about 5 times and each time, he gave this same reply, apart from once when he satated quite categotcally that it was against the law.

When I asked "If you don't tell me how I have broken the law, how can you dissuade me from doing it again", he replied : "Why would you want to do it again?"

When I stated that I no longer get interviews when applying for jobs, he thought that this was a just punishment for what I have done (whatever it is that I have done!!!!).

When I pointed out that the other party had spent time in a mental hospital, he was totally unconcerned. In reality, (like everywhere probably) it is not uncommon for people to be murdered by ex-mental patients. And this is especially so since IS and the like have been operating (several of these attacks have been carried out by people who seem to be mentally-ill). The other party has made clear over his Twitter account that he supports the ideas of Abu Hamza and Osama bin Laden.

I should point out that in a prior attack, he appears to have permanently damaged my eyesight (for which the police gave him a caution and then defended this sentence when (not unsurprisingly) I protested strongly against it.)

There is also a certain poignancy about these state of affairs in that my tutor from University, Dr. Peter Rowe, was killed in the Yemen in an attack which was one of the main reasons Abu Hamza is now in prison. In a way the complacency of British authorities towards Abu Hamza, who was still left at large despite his apparent complicity in the said crimes is being mirrored here in the complacency towards a violent thug who caused me enormous discomfort and who has a record of assaulting people.

Contrary to Brearley's lack of concern, two days after the mass murders in Brussels in 2016, the other party's Twitter account was suspended and mentions of him have drastically reduced (almost to zero) on Google. So someone, somewhere appears to be taking a bit more seriously. This is not the first time that a Twitter account has been closed down - previously he has started up under a different account name, but as I write he does appear to have "re-appeared".

In reference to what would have happen if he resumed his harassment, Brearley said that the police would assist me in that eventuality (and stuck to that line in spite of my protests to the contrary). Under the previous industrial-scale threatening behaviour, the police distinguished themselves by refusing to do again - so if this behavious resumes it is not fanciful to believe that the police will likewise do nothing.

When mentioning that the said letters (the ones in which I have "broken the law") were stolen, he essentially burst into laughter and poured scorn on my statement. A later letter that I had sent to a fellow resident, requesting him to forward my post, and which was sent by recorded delivery was also stolen.

Brearley stated the usual line about how I should go to my lawyer. This is evasive nionsense when the police should be able to better deal with it. To believe Brearley, he kneew full well what I had done to break the law, so he should have been well placed to tell me what I wanted to know - i.e. what have I done to break the law. Anyway, in my case the former line of action is impossible anyway because the said lawyers (Rowe Sparkes) tell me they do not deal with cases like mine (despite representing me originally!!!!)

Brearley later sent me a letter which, needless to say, did not give the information I required. He took up a whole side of A4 to tell me to go through a procedure that I had already gone through!!!! (and which obviously didn't give me the information I required)