It is interesting, but for the first time since 1913, a Defence Minister from the Ministry of Defence has declared at the Daniel James trial that "Iran is a country that one day we could be at war with".
So, does that mean that the new Obama regime will be declaring war with Iran next year? Or is Gordon Brown about to bomb Tehran.
Interesting stuff indeed. But the danger clearly is that the UK government are thinking right now about a potential war with Iran.
06 November 2008
Professor Meirion Francis Lewis uses bully boy Police to arrest me
Email from: Michael John Smith
To: Mr James Duddridge MP
Dear Mr Duddridge,
I am not sure if you received my message yesterday, which I asked Police at the Police Station to deliver on my behalf.
Yesterday I was arrested on allegations that I had harassed Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, who you may remember was the expert witness who I have accused of committing perjury and/or perverting the course of justice at my trial under the Official Secrets Act in 1993.
I have been very careful not to give Professor Lewis cause to allege that I have harassed him, but I have requested his explanations about how he came to give false evidence at my trial, and I have asked him to criticise my analysis of the facts, if he can. As Professor Lewis did not find anything wrong in my interpretation of the facts, then I proceeded to use that interpretation in my campaign to overturn my conviction.
I will not go into the details here, of what was discussed at the Police Station, but I did robustly dispute that any harassment had taken place, and I expressed my belief that it was Professor Lewis’s inability to explain his false evidence that has led to him using the Police to act as his personal agents, in an attempt to gag me from telling the truth.
After an interview, in which I gave a full account of my actions, it appeared that not all of the evidence had been sent from West Mercia Police to the local Police, particularly relevant correspondence between myself and the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police.
Consequently, it is apparent that somebody has sent a misleading dossier of evidence to the local Police, which subsequently led to my arrest. I believe this is the correct interpretation, because after an assessment at the Police Station it was decided to release me with no further action required, i.e. I have been neither charged nor cautioned about any offence.
I am most upset at what has happened, for several reasons:
(1) I was subjected to an unlawful arrest because incomplete evidence had been provided to the local Police. I consider that my arrest is a form of harassment for which Professor Lewis is responsible.
(2) I was given the impression that serious allegations had been made against me for which I could face a court case.
(3) I was held in a Police cell, deprived of my freedom, and treated as though I had committed an offence, for which no satisfactory evidence was adduced.
(4) Two friends of mine, Nelly and John Symonds, had arranged to visit me yesterday. They travelled all the way from Folkestone, but were not told when I would be released, and neither was I informed that they had been left waiting in the car park for several hours.
(5) Even though the evidence of harassment was based wholly on a complaint made by Professor Lewis himself, I was subjected to a full arrest procedure, in which I was photographed, fingerprinted, and a DNA sample taken from me. I particularly objected to providing any DNA sample, as I believed I had done nothing to warrant an arrest, but I was told by the Custody Officer that if I refused to give a DNA sample, then I would be pinned to the floor by four officers who would forcibly take DNA from me. I regard the eventual taking of DNA from me as a physical assault.
As Professor Lewis has decided to exploit the Police to protect himself from my accusations of perjury/perverting the course of justice, I decided that I must make a counter complaint and formerly accuse Professor Lewis of his unlawful behaviour.
I therefore request your help to:
(a) Investigate why it was considered necessary to arrest me, when there was clearly insufficient evidence to support that the said offence had occurred.
(b) Why the local Police have refused to accept my counter complaint against Professor Lewis, that he did in fact commit perjury and/or pervert the course of justice.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
To: Mr James Duddridge MP
Dear Mr Duddridge,
I am not sure if you received my message yesterday, which I asked Police at the Police Station to deliver on my behalf.
Yesterday I was arrested on allegations that I had harassed Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, who you may remember was the expert witness who I have accused of committing perjury and/or perverting the course of justice at my trial under the Official Secrets Act in 1993.
I have been very careful not to give Professor Lewis cause to allege that I have harassed him, but I have requested his explanations about how he came to give false evidence at my trial, and I have asked him to criticise my analysis of the facts, if he can. As Professor Lewis did not find anything wrong in my interpretation of the facts, then I proceeded to use that interpretation in my campaign to overturn my conviction.
I will not go into the details here, of what was discussed at the Police Station, but I did robustly dispute that any harassment had taken place, and I expressed my belief that it was Professor Lewis’s inability to explain his false evidence that has led to him using the Police to act as his personal agents, in an attempt to gag me from telling the truth.
After an interview, in which I gave a full account of my actions, it appeared that not all of the evidence had been sent from West Mercia Police to the local Police, particularly relevant correspondence between myself and the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police.
Consequently, it is apparent that somebody has sent a misleading dossier of evidence to the local Police, which subsequently led to my arrest. I believe this is the correct interpretation, because after an assessment at the Police Station it was decided to release me with no further action required, i.e. I have been neither charged nor cautioned about any offence.
I am most upset at what has happened, for several reasons:
(1) I was subjected to an unlawful arrest because incomplete evidence had been provided to the local Police. I consider that my arrest is a form of harassment for which Professor Lewis is responsible.
(2) I was given the impression that serious allegations had been made against me for which I could face a court case.
(3) I was held in a Police cell, deprived of my freedom, and treated as though I had committed an offence, for which no satisfactory evidence was adduced.
(4) Two friends of mine, Nelly and John Symonds, had arranged to visit me yesterday. They travelled all the way from Folkestone, but were not told when I would be released, and neither was I informed that they had been left waiting in the car park for several hours.
(5) Even though the evidence of harassment was based wholly on a complaint made by Professor Lewis himself, I was subjected to a full arrest procedure, in which I was photographed, fingerprinted, and a DNA sample taken from me. I particularly objected to providing any DNA sample, as I believed I had done nothing to warrant an arrest, but I was told by the Custody Officer that if I refused to give a DNA sample, then I would be pinned to the floor by four officers who would forcibly take DNA from me. I regard the eventual taking of DNA from me as a physical assault.
As Professor Lewis has decided to exploit the Police to protect himself from my accusations of perjury/perverting the course of justice, I decided that I must make a counter complaint and formerly accuse Professor Lewis of his unlawful behaviour.
I therefore request your help to:
(a) Investigate why it was considered necessary to arrest me, when there was clearly insufficient evidence to support that the said offence had occurred.
(b) Why the local Police have refused to accept my counter complaint against Professor Lewis, that he did in fact commit perjury and/or pervert the course of justice.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
