Blog entered 13 August 2014.




When a Local Government Ombudsman breaks the law by NOT investigating maladministratration by local Government, the LGO knows central Government will protect the LGO. This because most cases of maladministration are the result of central Government Policies.

If you now apply the same logic to the HO, PHSO, IPCC and others, you will begin to understand that we, the public, are not actually being protected at all.




Blog entered 5 May 2014


                     “FIRST REVIEW”

Question : When is a Cornwall Homechoice “First Review” Welfare Priority Assessment not a “First Review” ?

Answer : When the Local Government Ombudsman decides to break the law and engage in willful blindness to protect Cornwall Council before the public interest.

A “First Review” is Cornwall Council Policy 23.7 and the Council broke this Policy on 16 October 2012, which amounts to maladministration.

Thanks to a corrupt LGO we may never know how many other members of the public have also been willfuly conned by Cornwall Council.

The Law says Ombudsman must investigate complaints of “Maladministration”.

Quotation : the Local Government Ombudsman “Operate the most perverse and publicly criticised system of administrative justice in the world”, unquote.




Blog entered 4 August 2014.

Pictured is Sanctuary CEO David Bennett who would have known about the following :


The following is a copy of an email from Sanctuary Regional Director Richard Keeley to Simon Clark, now Managing Director – Sanctuary Housing Services, and Sarah Clarke-Kuehn, then Director, regarding my email Re: Re : Service Charge and related issues to Sanctuary’s Simon Clark, Rosemary Crawley and CEO David Bennett.

Re : Service Charge & Related Issues is an email with updates and reports which I have sent Simon Clark and Rosemary Crawley almost every week for the past 2 years. I have been assured CEO David Bennett receives a copy and I send his office a hard copy via Recorded Post now and then marked ‘Private & Confidential’.

Keeley’s email to Clark and Clarke-Kuehn was dated 30 July 2012, and was sent at 15:14 hours.

I quote :

“I’m not sure what Oonah’s statement to the Police was as I haven’t seen it. I’m not sure how he would have been able to see the statement either.

But my memory of this is that mediation took place at the Tengo cafe in St Austell at his request.

It is categorically untrue that I would have said this – to my knowledge he’s never been a physical threat. We agreed to hold mediation in the cafe because that was the only place he would agree to meet.

We originally wanted to meet him at the Council, but I think he said something along the lines of “I’ll meet with you only in Tengo cafe, and nowhere else” . We agreed, albeit reluctantly. He’s then constantly levelled the accusation at us that we held he meeting in an inappropriate place.


R. “, unquote.


“R” is for Richard as in Richard Keeley. Shortly before I was unlawfully arrested by Devon & Cornwall Police in 2012 and which was orchestrated by Cornwall Council to protect itself and Sanctuary Housing, Richard Keeley’s title went from “Regional Director” to “Head of Housing Operations (South West)” to protect all concerned. A turd by another name. The conclusion of the false arrest led to 4 Officers being reprimanded by the IPCC and which involved a white wash and a cover-up by both Devon & Cornwall Police and the IPCC.


Oonah Lacey’s written complaint to the Police concerned a “Director of Sanctuary” who instructed TPAS Mediator Oonah Lacey that I “must not be seen alone and was seen as dangerous and any meeting must be in a place of public”, unquote.

Simon Clark must have known the Police were denying me a copy of Lacey’s written complaint for Keeley to state that he didn’t know “either”. The truth is I didn’t see the statement but parts of it were read out to me and my solicitor by one of the two officers present at the “oppressive” Recorded Interview. A request was made for a copy of the tapes and a transcript was made.

The tapes also enabled me to prove Oonah Lacey willfuly lied to the Police a number of times in her written complaint but neither the I/O or the IPCC investigated this evidence.

The meeting did take place at the Tengo cafe in St Austell and I did choose the venue after Oonah Lacey asked me to find somewhere we could talk. I never requested we meet anywhere and there was never any suggestion the meeting would be anything other than a one to one informal chat about my problems with my landlord. Lacey’s written advice prior to the meeting was that she would ” meet with you and then meet with Sanctuary”, unquote, and later bring us together to resolve the issues.

In referring to the meeting as “Mediation”, as did Lacey and Parsons in the Report of the “Mediation Meeting”, Keeley is acknowledging the Charity did finance an unlawful process of Mediation in a cafe without the propietors consent or my consent to enter into binding “Mediation”.

The suggestion by Keeley that they, Sanctuary Housing and TPAS, wanted to meet me at the Council is a fabricated lie. “I’ll meet with you only in Tengo cafe, and nowhere else” , unquote, is also a fabricated lie with quotation marks.

Even Sanctuary Housing’s Christa Ripley, Head of Housing Operations – Midlands, who investigated the issues, stated in her letter of 21 March 2013 that she could find no evidence that any offer to meet at the Council had ever been put to me.

With regard to me levelling accusations at Sanctuary Housing that the cafe was an “inappropriate place”, the cafe was an inappropriate place to conduct “Mediation”. Moreso when one considers it involved the largest social housing provider in the country, and an Organisation which frequently advises Government.

With regard to Judge Rosemary Crawley I can only say that the Law should have taken precedence over Boardroom Protocol.


The following is part of an email conversation between Area Manager Janet Swales and her boss Regional Director Richard Keeley on 16 May 2011, in reply to his earlier request that day that she seek advice from the local Mental Health team regarding myself. Keeley’s email was also copied to Sanctuary’s Jane Pike and Ed Blackmore at 11:51 hours.

“Hi Richard, I’ve checked with the mental health team and he is not known to them. I’m not sure that we can go any further on the mental health angle”, unquote.

Keeley and Swales needed an “angle” to detract from the fact they had broken the law and were both untrustworthy.

So what has this to do with the charity Sanctuary Housing funding an unlawful Mediation process ?

Oonah Lacey also stated in her written complaint to the Police that I was “mentally disturbed” and had “mental health issues”.



Blog entered 6 August 2014


I was arrested on 24 April 2012 for allegedly posting information on the internet about the complainant which are disparaging and malicious causing her to lose clients and damage her reputation, which amounts to the harassment of another, namely Ms Oonah Lacey (the Complainant).

My defence against the allegation was that the posted information was in response to extreme unlawful provocation by the complainant in her capacity as an external Mediator in a dispute between myself and my landlord Sanctuary Housing. That her role was not impartial because she was acting for my landlord and that the process was a Scam.

Sanctuary Housing being the first TPAS Accredited Landlord in the country.

2 Officers visited my home on the morning of 24 April 2012 and explained why they were there. I explained I needed to get ready and would also need to explain to my wife, who was visiting me, what was happening as she suffered long term mental illness. After waiting downstairs the Officers drove me to St Austell Police Station.

At the tender age of 60 I had never been arrested before so did not know what to expect. I was searched by hand and with a metal detector and was asked to empty out my pockets. I was asked numerous questions by the Desk Sargeant who typed the answers electronically which I then signed. I was advised of my rights and elected to have a duty solicitor.

I then had my picture taken, gave a DNA sample, gave fingerprints and palm prints and was locked in a cell by the Desk Sargeant for a little under an hour altogether. My coat was confiscated because it had an internal cord. I later rang the cell bell and asked the Desk Sargeant to call my wife to make sure she was okay. He tried but had problems getting her.

Sometime before I spoke to the solicitor on the phone the Desk Sargeant suggested if I agreed to remove Blogs from my website he would be happy to give me a warning only. That if I was charged that day my PC would be taken as evidence knowing I earned my living online. Because I felt threatened by his remarks I decided not to agree anything.

I spoke briefly with the duty Solicitor when he eventually arrived and before the recorded interview began at 13.46 hours. Present in interview was myself, the Solicitor, and 2 Officers. Following a short break later to change the audio tapes the interview resumed again and ended at 14.59 hours.

Due to a lack of written police evidence the Officers relied upon the complainant’s written complaint and her Victim Personal Statement (VPS), which the Solicitor expressed was inappropriate in interview. Further use of the VPS later caused the Solicitor to state that the interview was becoming ‘oppressive’. In response to the VPS pressure I did agree to remove some limited references from my website and from Twitter.

Shortly after the interview the Solicitor and myself approached the duty desk expecting me to be charged because I hadn’t admitted to doing anything wrong other than to protect myself from extreme provocation.

The Desk Sargeant announced he had phoned the complainant and she had agreed to me receiving a warning only. I then agreed to the conditions indicated on Form No. : 311.

On leaving the Solicitor seemed surprised but happy it had turned out the way it did.

Feeling unhappy with what had happened I made an application to Devon & Cornwall Constabulary for a transcript of the interview and any other data I was entitled to under the Data Protection Act. I also requested a copy of the complaint because it named me and made false allegations about me.

I later received 2 audio tapes, internal documents, and was refused a copy of the written complaint. On questioning this I was told in writing that if I applied for a Court Order to get a copy he would use the police legal department to stop me.

Once a transcript was made I had a clearer indication of the complaint details and concluded the complainant would, in my opinion, have been done for perjury had it gone to Court. That the police would have come under scrutiny for not acting impartially and for not properly investigating the complaint or producing any evidence to justify my arrest and detention.

In response I lodged a complaint against the Desk Sargeant and 2 Officers with D&CC via the IPCC. D&CC nominated an Investigating Officer (I/O) who was also a Sargeant. He investigated and recommended in his Report dated 13 December 2012 that the 2 Officers should receive Management Action only and that the Desk Sargeant had no case to answer.

Because the I/O’s investigation barely scratched the surface or investigated the evidence I had submitted I lodged an Appeal with the IPCC on 8 February 2013. That I did not accept the Desk Sargeant and 2 Officers had made individual mistakes but that all 3 had acted collectively.

(The Appeal was lodged after I received the decision by a Superintendent from the Professional Standards Department to up-hold the I/O’s recommendations in his letter dated 7 January 2013. In an earlier email to me the I/O advised me the Detective Superintendent responsible for the Professional Standards Department, a female Officer, would write to me by 10 January 2013. Clearly she was unavailable and one of her team dealt with the I/O’s Report and recommendations).

The IPCC recently made it’s decision on 9 May 2014, some 15 months later, and decided not to up-hold my complaint. That the 2 Officers would still only receive Management Action. However, the IPCC disagreed with the I/O regarding the Desk Sargeant and recommended he should also receive Management Action for “performing a multi function role which may leave him open to a challenge on impartiality in the future”, unquote. This also due to the IPCC establishing there were other Sargeants available at the station on the day of my arrest and detention.

I have since pointed out to the IPCC that most of the evidence I provided remains un-answered and un-resolved. In reply the IPCC has said it has no legal powers to act once the decision is made and the case is concluded.

I specifically pointed out that according to the I/O’s Report the ‘Statement of complaint’ was dated 05/04/2012, yet an internal document obtained through the Data Protection request clearly proved I was being investigated weeks before that date when the police contacted Sanctuary Housing as part of it’s investigation on me. That the false date served to give the misleading impression the Officers had less time to investigate than was the case in reality according to the entries on the document.

The written complaint twice maliciously and wrongly alleged I had mental health issues and that I was also ‘dangerous’, none of which the police investigated. The police has since defended it’s position by saying I answered “NO” to being mentally ill when the Desk Sargeant booked me in that day.

My problem with this is that if the complainant was telling the truth, that I was “mentally disturbed”, I was the worst person to ask since a lot of people with mental illness do not believe they are mentally ill. That the police had every good reason to investigate these serious allegations before approaching me.

The malicious and false allegations of me being “dangerous”, “mentally disturbed”and having “mental health issues” in the written complaint to the police originated from Sanctuary Housing.

In reply to the alleged intimidation by the Desk Sargeant to take my PC as evidence if I was charged that day the IPCC pointed out I had no witnesses. The IPCC also said the Desk Sargeant has since explained that he was of the opinion I was “unemployed”, which the IPCC accepted despite the IPCC itself acknowledging my website “forms part of your business communication”. That although it was the Desk Sargeant’s investigation neither he or his 2 Officers noticed the Blogs in question were on a website called ‘Geoff’s Cameras’ and which had camera equipment for sale.

I also believe my landlord would have advised the police I was not in receipt of benefits when it was contacted mid-March 2011, because it knew I was self-employed.

The IPCC also said nothing about the written errors in the Pre-Interview Disclosure, which I assume was due to the senior interview Officer having such little time to cobble together the erroneous Disclosure an hour before his interview began.

The Police, the I/O, and the IPCC also failed to establish once and for all if the complainant Oonah Lacey had been sacked for alleged fraud in 2011. This despite evidence I provided to show how the complainant lied to the police in her written complaint regarding this issue *). Also that the Officer in interview who stated he knew for a “fact” the complainant had not been sacked for alleged fraud could not provide any proof to substantiate his “fact”.

*) To distance herself from the time she was sacked for alleged fraud around June/July 2011, Oonah Lacey stated in her wriiten complaint ” I decided to hand my notice in to TPAS and left on the 19th August to set up a housing consultancy and training organisation in partnership, um, with Penny and Charles Arbuthnot”, unquote.

It took me less than 5 minutes to establish on the internet that the housing consultancy and training organisation was registered as a limited company called ‘Involvis Limited’, No : 07675921, on 21st June 2011, months before Oonah Lacey claimed it had been set up. Also that she, Penny and Charles Arbuthnot were appointed Directors on 21st June 2011.

That Oonah Lacey did willfuly lie to the police in her written statement and that although Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and the IPCC were made aware of this evidence neither have investigated it.

Having established the Desk Sargeant was running the police station as if he owned it and that all 4 Officers were individually found to be at fault in some way, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest the 3 Officers willfuly colluded to do what they did and that the I/O attempted to willfuly cover-up evidence, the Desk Sargeant’s partiality, the Desk Sargeant’s influence over the 2 Officers and the Desk Sargeant’s multi-functional role. That all 4 Officers willfuly and jointly perverted the course of justice.

I also do not think it inconceivable that a more Senior Officer at the police station agreed to the Desk Sargeant taking on multi-functional roles that day, and that the Superintendent representing the Professional Standards Department may have been briefed about the Desk Sargeant’s multi-function roles before he agreed the I/O’s recommendation that the Desk Sargeant had no case to answer. That the Detective Superintendent responsible for the Professional Standards Department was then protected in not having to personally deal with the I/O’s flawed investigation and Report herself.

I also do not think it unreasonable to suggest the Desk Sargeant did NOT phone the complainant after interview but did phone somebody. This based on the organisations and individuals who would have benefited more than Oonah Lacey from the removal of Blogs.

If there are any law firms/barristers out there who would like to help me take any of the above to the cleaners, they desperately need it, please get in touch. My details are below.