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

Email Listing

  1. You appear to have no intention of telling me specifically what I have done wrong. I might ask what you intend to do with the 200 pounds that I sent you specifically to be used as expenses in providing me with this specific information?

    Of this money I suspect that 50 pounds I sent to Chivers at Fratton police station on 20/05/12 has 'gone missing'. He doesn't want to acknowledge my comunications anyway

    (PS my suspicions about poor treatment due to the need to 'reduce' crime figures have been heightened due to today's news from London (this was news of 'Operation Sapphire'))

  2. Compare the problems I had at my previous address with the ones I have been experiencing here (see attachment - letter from Southern Housing Group.

    At my previous address I experienced appalling harassment, my live ceased to be my own - harassment with threats of violence. In early 2009 I went along to Winston Churchill Avenue and the police said 'no crime had been committed' (although latterly different people seem to express a different opinion)

    At my current address I experience severe anti-social behavior but no threats of violence - nothing to compare with the experiences at my previous address. However on this occasion we had a couple of police officers get involved - even being invited to a meeting in a room at the Queen's Hotel.

    Personally I never got involved because the police had already told me that complaining about behavior like this is against the law. As I said yesterday no-one wants to tell me exactly what I have done wrong previously but 'complaining about behavior like this' is seemingly quite definitely against the law - I should know, the police prosecuted me for doing such a thing.

    No-one from the police have been able to tell me why the police themselves were latterly asking me to follow a course of action which previously had caused them to prosecute me.

    This anti-social behavior probably still has some vestiges with other tenants (e.g. one put the window through on the front door). So it would be a great advantage to me for the police to inform me what I did wrong at Victoria Road North, so I have some idea of what precisely I might be able to do counteracting ant--social behavior at my current address.

  3. The first of the documents with which the police said I was harassing someone contained just one line, namely....

    "M****, can you bear witness to the continual door-slamming?"

    Now I have absolutely no idea why this is against the law but it obviously is, according to PC Wakefield at al of the Portsmouth Police. The only progress I have made in 3 years is for someone to tell me that by itself it is not against the law but it is, seen in conjunction with other events, This is not much use to me because I still don't understand why it is against the law.

    I have requesting for 3 years that someone tell me what I have done wrong. An appropriate response would be

    The statement "M****, can you bear witness to the continual door-slamming" is against the law because .... (adding explicit reason)

  4. In December 2009, I informed PC Wakefield that a recorded delivery letter of mine appeared to have been stolen. The reasons for this were

    • the envelope from the recorded delivery letter was attached to a letter written by which Wakefield was using to try and to accuse me of harassment
    • the intended recipient told me that he never received this recorded delivery letter - this was a letter sent to Matthew Winder asking nothing more than to forward my mail

    PC Wakefield and the Portsmouth Police ignored me, so a few months later I complained to the IPCC.

    Attachment No 1 is a copy of an IPCC report authored by Inspector Charlton of Portsmouth Police

    Attachment No 2 is a later letter stating PC Wakefield's actions

    Comparison of the two will show that there is a paragraph in Charlton's report which has been fabricated - namely...

    He states that he took some considerable time to advise the complainant regarding the correct course of action and has confirmed that his investigation showed that the letters were not stolen or interfered with. The result was communicated to the complainant but this did not resolve the complainant's determination to continue to press on regarding these matters
    '

    I can only think of three possible reasons why this fabrication has been written

    1. PC Wakefield is lying

    2. Inspector Charlton is lying

    3. Inspector Charlton is as thick as two short planks

    If No 1 was found not be applicable then 2 and 3 can be combined into the one statement by paraphrasing the words of Aneurin Bevan:- We don't know whether Inspector Charlton believes what he says, all we know is that if he is not lying them he is too stupid a person to hold such a position of responsibility

    Non-members of the police force who are receiving these emails will realise that this issue is not just restricted in relevance to my own 'little' case

  5. The attachment contains an 'IPCC report'

    Apart from the factors I have already mentioned, straightaway there are problems with it

    1) it does not address the fact that M*** told me he had NOT received the recorded delivery letter. If he hadn't done that then no complaint would have been made so it is hardly a trivial point for the police to address

    2) it does not ask why M*** should hand over both the letter and its envelope to a third party given that it contained only a request to forward my mail

    3) it does not address the issue of whether M*** would be enthusiastic about answering in the negative to the police. My harasser is a thug who had hit me three times but he still wasn't thrown out, so if he were to get convicted of stealing mail he would still not get thrown out and M*** would have created a great millstone around his neck

    (after all this is the attitude adopted by myself - a major factor in me 'pleading guilty' to this nonsense was because if it had gone to trial then my harasser would have found my current address out, and I am not having that)

    4) It seems to forget that I know M*** (for over 10 years) and all the other residents. For example : the letter that I sent out to the other residents proclaiming that I had had enough, wanted to take legal action and asking for fellow residents to bear witness to what I being subjected to. As a result of this letter my harasser went ape-shit, he throw my evening meal in the bin after I had returned from work, subjected me to all kinds of abuse etc etc. - a real hoo-hah At the time I assumed that a fellow resident had given it to the landlord and this naive landlord had handed it to my harasser. I now know my harasser stole these letters, but according to the police he acquired it because M*** gave it to him

    This is totally inconsistent to the way M*** treated me after the event - if he had been responsible for the hoo-hah there is no way that he would have just continued as normal. Likewise I was talking to another resident a few months ago and they knew nothing about it - to be consistent with police claims they must must have a memory like a sieve but I prefer to believe they know nothing about it because their letter was stolen.

  6. I was going to write on another point but today's news touches on my concerns. My harasser (as I have often said) has something wrong with him mentally. He has hit me three times for God knows what reasons, and I just do not feel as safe as I should be feeling.

    While I was living under the same roof as him, it was very noticeable that he would never go out - he was effectively there all the time, mostly watching television. He could be suffering from agrophobia but I think that is unlikely - I like to believe it is more likely to symptomatic of the said mental problems. The upshot was that his harassment of me was constant. The door-slamming always happened without any days off, or even hours off. When I went in to the public area, i.e. the kitchen , he would always follow me in, because he was always in etc. etc.

    I believe the police were responsible for escalating this harassment. They only gave him a caution on the third occasion he hit me, which he took as being let off, and I believe this 'caution' was taken as a green light by him to enhance the level of harassment - to a level way, way beyond endurance.

    So I attempted to take legal action against this harassment, harassment caused by police inaction, and the police added insult to injury by prosecuting me for attempting to take legal action, claiming this was harassment.

    This is just another green light to my stalker to carry on, if he should ever find out where I now live. God knows what could happen - and God knows what could happen as I walk to work at 5:30 in the morning.

  7. We now come to the way the police decided to prosecute me for 'harassing' a benefit cheat while NOT prosecuting him for breaking the law in this manner - even a layman like me knows that claiming dole money while working is against the law..

    My harasser was working as a paperboy in a shop (Castle News) about 400 meters away from my new address - I didn't exactly know where he worked until I moved and saw him entering the shop (I saw him twice in my first month at my new address, which is good going considering I only have one day off a week).

    I am, if I can put it like this, a victim also of the clandestine nature of the 'job'. There was a strong 'implication' that I had lost him his 'job' but I am not able to check on this, possibly because of the said clandestine arrangement. He was unlikely to have been paid the minimum wage or have been properly insured so the employer is likewise likely to be unforthcoming in providing the required information. However I get the impression there has been a change in ownership which is possibly the real reason for my harasser losing his 'job'.

    Originally a paperboy did enter our block, and since Castle News was the only paper shop around here, there is a certain possibility that my harasser could also enter our block at some time. This could be just be with the excuse that he was working (as opposed to genuinely working), if it should have ever come to pass that he found out where I lived.

    This aspect (the aspect mentioned in the last paragraph) was not taken seriously by the police. You can hear this clearly on the tape taken of my 'interview' - I mention my apprehension about this aspect to PC Wakefield but it goes completely over his head

    If you have got this far, hopefully you can appreciate what I am saying : someone who is breaking the law by working while claiming dole enters a police station and complains about aspects of this very same job. You might thus find it easier to believe me when I had previously talked about him entering a police station and making a complaint based on letters which he had stolen (and handing over to the police a recorded delivery letter stolen by him which had nothing to do with the matter in hand)

    In conclusion I have to wonder whether an illegal immigrant could enter a police station, complain about aspects of his employment and get the police to take him seriously

  8. I have been describing a situation were I was accused by police of harassing a thug who had hit me three times

    Main features are

    1) my harasser complaining to police about his 'work' despite being a benefit cheat - claiming dole money while engaging in this 'work'

    2) my harasser producing letters which

    a) he had acquired by stealing them

    b) which listed his behavior in subjecting me to appalling harassment. I have already mentioned the first of these letters, a one liner, which said : 'Matthew can you bear witness to the door-slamming' . I can only imagine that he has produced this, stated to the police that he was the door-slammer in question while insisting the police do something about it - and the police obliged!!!!!!!!!!! (obviously the same reasoning applies to the other letters)

    These surreal aspects could be 'abolished' by noting another feature - he is the son of a police officer (sergeant or inspector)

    In fact his father became actively involved in this case - something which previously I would have thought would not be allowed

  9. The 'connection' with his father started when my harasser accused me of attacking him with a knife

    This was supposed to have take place in the kitchen and to have occured 48 hours after he nearly took my eye out.

    Surprisingly this did not put him off from then following me into the kitchen every time I went in there - and I do mean every time, he only left the house to do his paper round, otherwise he was always in.

    And it also did not prevent him from repeatedly slamming the door directly outside my room - not a recommended procedure to be attempted in the vicinity of someone who has attacked you with a knife

    I have previously suggested to the police that this might be prima facie evidence that the 'knife attack' never took place, and maybe they might want to arrest him for wasting police time

    Even on the day, there was no challenge to the assertion that I was in the kitchen 'first'. Given that 48 hours beforehand he had hit me so hard directly on my eye that I ended up flat on my back, why would he locate himself in or near the kitchen unless it was to stir up trouble? From memory, in his statement there was no mention of my obvious black eye despite him giving a description of myself (I think this was primarily because he wasn't even close enough to see me).

    As a result of this confrontation, he exclaimed : "I'll get you - my father is in the CID"

    Four officers came and broke down my door and there was at least one other officer outside (I was taken outside in handcuffs, in full view of the neighborhood).

    I subsequently asked his father whether he was connected to this incident but he never answered. All it would have taken was about 30 seconds to send me an email. This he never did, thus raising suspicion that he was indeed involved.

    My repeated attempts to elicit an answer from him were classed by the police as against the law but are classed by me as a legitimate act in a democracy.

  10. The father of my harasser ( a police officer) became involved the case, on behalf of his son, something that previously I thought would not have been allowed

    His father knew

    -- that he had hit me three times and that on the third occasion he had caused damage to my eye

    -- all about the harassment that his son was inflicting on me

    and he possibly knew

    -- that his son was breaking the law by working while claiming dole

    and he must, like any parent in such a situation, have known

    -- the extent of his son's mental problems

    He also certainly knew about claims that I had attacked his son with a knife.

    But the thing is that no parent worth the name would allow their offspring to continue to live in a building where their offspring had been attacked with a knife. But he appears not to have done anything - I just get the impression that if he had made any real atempts in this direction I would have found out about it in some way.

    I have to at least consider the following possibility : he 'advises' his son to invent a counter-claim in order to reduce the apparent severity of his own assault on me, and thus he would know all the time that no knife attack took place.

    It could of course just be that he recognizes his son's mental problems and realised right from the word 'go' he made up the knife-attack claims.

    He certainly acted in a way totally unbecoming of a police officer

  11. With all the proceedings around Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall et al., with presumably many of the accusations only surfacing recently, I think I should be entitled to have my complaint of February 2009 resurrected, in the light of subsequent events

    At the time, I had gone to the police to compain about harassment.

    I was driven to distraction by door-slamming, being followed around, etc. etc. . I had no real quality of life at all. I was experiencing harassment way , way beyoond endurance

    The police said they couldn't do anything, at which point I assumed it was a civil offence (I think now it was a criminal offence)

    The police must have known that I was going to therefore pursue the matter as a civil case, but they made no attempt to tell me that this course of action would be against the law

    They had already given my harasser the green light to step-up his harassment of me when they reacted to him hitting me in the eye (the third occasion he had hit me) by awarding him a caution.

    Likewise prosecuting me for taking legal action is not going to stop him

    To state specifically what the police have done here - they have not been neutral w.r.t harssment with threats of violence, they have actually condoned it. This is at a time when harassment with threats of violence has become a specific criminal offence

    They have told him that all his harassment of me was ok and that my protests against it were against the law (see attachment for fuller details)

  12. Let me state clearly what happenned

    Someone subjects me to appalling harassment, and when I object this harasser enters a police station and complains about it, claiming his 'feelings had been hurt'

    In order to qualify the statement that his "feelings have been hurt" he would have had to reveal the identity of the harasser I was objecting to ... ... as himself

    And then the police let him off scott-free and went after me as the victim

    I'm sorry for stating a cliche, but you couldn't make it up. No-one would accept it as believable if you tried to present such a scenario in a work of fiction

    Please note that my harasser is the son of a policeman - so no rats to be smelled there then

    (for the benfit of non-members of the police force who are reading this) : please note that if I can be prosecuted for being the victim of a harasser then you yourself are not safe either

  13. This is a link to an article on the awarding of a caution to a burglar

    The Chief Constable has reported the incident to their own Professional Standards Unit. I wouldn't mind reporting the way that my attacker got a caution to Hampshire's Professional Standards Unit except that I have the impression that Professional Standards Units are more engaged with whitewashing procedures than with what they are nominally supposed to do.

    On Monday 18th March, Radio Solent were talking about this issue, see this link (probably defunct after 25th March)

    Radio Solent

    starting at 1.09.45

    at 1.14.45 they started talking about the 'possibly immense' effect that a caution could have on someone's career. This contradicts Inspector Eddie Charlton of Portsmouth Police who thinks that a caution has zero effect on people's career - he would "bet his life on it".

    Given that I have only had one interview in the last 3 and a half years, markedly less than what I would have previously have expected, leads me to believe that cautions do indeed have a disastrous effect on careers

    at 1.42.30 I personally had a mention - the actual sentences broadcast were as follows :

    "They handed a caution to someone on the third occasion he hit me. I feel the immediate effect of this caution was counter-productive, the harassment I was receiving was stepped up to unbearable levels because my attacker viewed it as being let off."

    which is a fairly accurate assessment of my experience if I had to put it into two brief sentences

  14. Yet more events occur which leave me baffled

    It is announced by the Government (April 2013, along with swingeing cuts in social security in general) that from now on people will not be able to claim legal aid to fight certain cases involving threats from someone who has already been prosecuted or cautioned for violent behavior.

    Yet when I tried to take legal action in a case involving threats from someone who has already been cautioned for violent behavior, I was arrested by the police and prosecuted myself

    How can I be prosecuted for doing something when at the same time people could actually get legal aid to do the same thing?

  15. Further to the benefit reforms introduced recently, it is apposite to point out that Portsmouth Police follow a policy radically different from the Government.

    When a benefit cheat walked into a police station and complained that I had been 'harassing' him at his point of work, the police's reaction was not aligned with what you might expect from present government attitudes.

    What they did was this : they let the benefit cheat off scot-free and prosecuted me for harassing him at his place of work [sic].

    (I should say that this person had previously hit me three times, on the third occasion nearly taking my eye out, so my involvement in above the above-mentioned events was not motivated by any pure political purpose. The message is :- if you want to report benefit cheats, then beware

  16. I don't know whether it is the cold weather but I have been experiencing repeated 'problems' with my eyes over the last week

    The problem arise when I look to far right/left and/or when I move my eyes quickly when I have diificulty focusing immmediately

    Immediately this brings to mind that the person who hit me directly in the eye, leading me to think for a few seconds that I had indeed lost my eye, and resulting in a couple of doctors debating whether I had had my eye socket fractured or not, received a caution from the police.

    This then reminds me that this said person reacted to this leniency by inflicting an appalling regime of harassment on me

    And then finally this reminds me that when I attempted to take legal action to stop this appalling harssment, the police reacted by prosecuting me, which I suspect is the main reason why I cannot now find a proper job.

    My attacker is the son of a police officer

    So no rats to be smelled there

  17. Do you intend to just keep the 250 pounds I have sent you, without using it for the purposes for which it was intended?

    Surely it is a basic right that I should be provided with details of my wrongdoing if I am going to be prosecuted for something.

    On a practical level, how on Earth can I be dissuaded from repeating the offence if I don't know what the offence actually is?

    It would be timely to know this information. It is presumably on police record that the tenant above me has complained to the police about noise from the tenant below me. Naturally enough I wouldn't have minded complaining as well but unless you tell me how I might be able to do this without breaking the law, my hands are tied

  18. What is the purpose of the Professional Standards Department?

    After great effort I did get the said department to state that a paragraph in an IPCC report issued by Inspector E. Charlton had been fabricated.

    The said paragraph is shown below


    Section 3

    Complaint 1 and 2

    I have spoken to PC Wakefield at length.....................

    In the real world this would lead to a wider investigation of the whole document - but with the police everything just proceeds as though nothing had happened.

    You could start right at the beginning, where it states I had no evidence to provide (that a recorded delivery letter had been stolen). This letter had obviously landed in the hands of someone other than the intended recipient, that is clear to everyone (because he gave it to the police) - and the intended recipient tells me that he never received it. To a layman like myself, I have to ask - what other 'evidence' could I possibly provide?

    If it is any help in understanding what is happenning here - the unauthorized person who gained possession of this letter is the son of a police officer.

    He has also recently spent some time in a mental institution (presumably St. James) and seems happy to boast on the Internet that three doctors have classified him as a 'psychopath'

  19. Another example of the police 'not being bothered'

  20. Compare the item below to the situation when I had a door kicked right into my eye with such force that my contact lens was driven down the side of my eye and I landed flat on my back. I'm fairly certain that has caused permanent problems with my vision - often I can't instantaneously focus when moving my eyes quickly (such as when crossing a road). This was the third time that this person had hit me.

    He received a caution

    He has since spent time in a mental institution where he claims 'three doctors classified him a psychopath'.

    Despite a statement from a police officer from Southsea Station that he was 'not local' and that I was 'very unlikely to meet him again'. I have in fact seen him again and in fact he turned up to a meeting of a cinema group that I sometimes attend (and which is advertised on the Internet) - I think this has a slim chance of being coincidence, and even if it was it would only highlight how vulnerable I feel with this person still living around here with no deterrents being issued against him wrt his behaviour towards me, apart from the aforementioned caution, which he has only interpreted as being 'let off'

    My attacker/harasser is the son of police officer


    .............................She [Drew] followed the postman and slammed the door of his van against his head."

    Miss Evans said Mr Rogers had a headache afterwards.

    Jenna Threadgold, defending, said while Drew deliberately slammed the door she did not intend to hit Mr Rogers head but accepted she had.

    "It was a mutual argument", she said.

    "The dog had not been aggressive. She has not received any post since July.

    Drew was given a two-year conditional discharge

    Dog Owner Slams Van Door onto Postman's Head

At this point, it becomes useless to print further copies of emails etc. because of repetition etc..

However, this cartoon 'explains' my predicament fairly well