Page 628 - tmp

is acceptable.
If the inspector had done his job when he come to the road side
when my son asked if one could have been called this could have
all been avoided, but instead he just went with what the police
officer said and did not brother to check what my son was saying.
Something always come to mind here and that is what was
written in the subject access request I got back from my son's
insurance company, This was after the time we spent trying to
stop the insurance company cancelling my son's insurance and
going to courts. When I saw this it hurt as we knew the police had
not told the truth and in the subject access request there was
nothing to say my son was not in the wrong. There was no sorry
there was nothing and this is just wrong. My son was the one that
had the bad mark against his name for a long time until it was
proven in the appeal court, not the police officer and this is still
the case to this day the police officer has done nothing wrong in
everyone's eyes when he did do wrong. He has been allowed to
move on in his life, my son was the one spending all the time to
clear his name not the police officer when my son had done
nothing wrong.
"[ ... ] Which is obviously ... we're in an awkward situation as well
because [Data Subject] and
[Data Subject] mum are constantly ringing us up. They don't
understand that obviously we
are going to take a police officer's views over obviously one of our
policyholders because
obviously a police officer's job is obviously to tell the truth and not
to lie."
This is the action of most peoples view but in this case the police
officer was not telling the truth my son was. And my son was the
one being made to suffer when he had not done anything wrong.
But yet people believe the police in everything they say.
I know you have said PC G's current occupation; I can assure
you it would have no bearing on this matter whatsoever.
Maybe I see it another way his occupation is Head of Criminal
Justice, Centre for Social Justice, cant you see the irony in this he
is trying to find justice for people, but what he did in this case was
never justice at his own hands, the DPS never served justice for
my son, yet they knew PC G had lied in this whole case, and that
PC G took it to the courts and again never told the truth and
perjury himself two times in a court of law. PC G seems to think
this is acceptable he still applied for his job roll where he is
working to make sure justice is fair for all. I am sure if he had
admitted to breaking the law in what he did he would not be in
the position he is in now I do find this very relevant that is how I
feel and my son does.
Best Regards
Lorraine Cordell

From: Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk
[mailto:Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk]
Sent: 07 August 2017 09:44
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Morning Lorraine,
Firstly, apologies for my delayed reply! I had intended to reply much
sooner.
I think I’m correct in saying that the necessity for your son’s arrest
was associated with PC G’s uncertainty as to the address provided.
This is something I’ll discuss in the report.
3606