Page 737 - tmp

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.

3715