Page 642 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

11/08/2014
In regards to
07/04/2013
= Please read the Applicants last statement dated the
24/02/2015
he states that he did not attended any premises on this date to rave, Mr.
Cordell did not involve himself in the organization of any illegal rave this
was his friend’s housing estate and was on a Sunday, nor did he supply
equipment on said date. The Applicant will State; “that he was not rude to
police, but he did feel like he could not even go out for the day with some
of his friends, without getting stopped and searched by members of the
police. It is also noted that the caller was very clear that they saw a flat
screen TV being put into Mr. Cordell’s van, which is confusing to why
when the police searched the van they found no TV, but did in fact find
two of his off road motor bikes, which is not included in Steve Elsmore
statement. The police did checks on the Applicant Off Road Motor Bikes
but this is also not stated, but should show up on the seizer notice, as the
Applicant did ask the police office to take careful note of the two off road
motor bikes, as due to the high value of them. Mr. Simon Cordell will
state; “that he did get a bit upset when the police said they were going to
seize his van, as he did have insurance in place to be able to drive the van
in question, but there was an error on the MID database. Miss Cordell had
been trying to help her son resolve the issue concerning his insurance
policy not showing on the mid data base alongside with members of their
local police force and his insurance company KGM too, together they had
tried to work out why the Applicant was showing as uninsured.
There was information noted as intelligence on the police National
Computer stating this asking the police to check on their systems due to
this, but they would not they just wanted to seize the Applicant van without
checking, so he knew he was being wrongfully accused at this point, as he
had done nothing wrong and he did have insurance to be driving and had
paid a lot of money for his insurance. He states he did not get upset in the
manner that the police have said he did and that he does not mean to come
across as rude to police. In this case he was just trying to explain the error
on the system. In addition, the prosecution offered no evidence in respect
of the charges that were brought even though they were reliant on police
witnesses. The Applicant had been wrongfully arrested for not having
insurance when he was insured to drive. He also did not cause any Anti-
Social Behaviour on this date in question. There are no CAD’s for this
date, but yet they was meant to be, a CAD referring to the pacific details
that should be relating to a person stating, that they believed a burglary was
in progress and that of the 999 caller stating that they had seen a person
who was putting a flat screen TV into the Applicant van.
3. In reference to 24th May 2013 police station: --