Page 3 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 3rd Half

police station. Until we got the DPS report the only word we had that PC G used his
notebook on that day was my son. And I am sorry but it does not cut it that PC G could get
away with saying his arrest was needed due to uncertainty as to the address provided. When a
person is stopped or spoken to the police like my son was a radio check would be carried out
to check to see if the person was wanted or anything else. The police have my son's address
on their system so the address my son gave would have been checked and shown as correct
on the police system. My son did not need to lie he give PC G his insurance cert with no
problem he had done nothing wrong, so would have had no need to give a wrong address as
he would know it would have shown on the police system, why would my son say he was
homeless? It was not my son that lied it was PC G and I believe that has already been proven.
I believe 3 weeks is enough time for PC G to come forward and 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
2862,
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 is 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 people’s 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, can’t 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,