Page 644 - tmp

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,

3622