“Don’t move, you’re surrounded by armed bastards!”

Any serious Life on Mars fan will immediately recognise this quote from Gene Hunt, that fictional Police detective from the 70s and 80s who the entire UK all developed a certain romanticism with between 2006 – 2010 after watching him as the leading role in Life on Mars and the spin off Ashes to Ashes. This was an old school copper, not afraid to bend the rules by beating a confession out of suspect with a telephone receiver when the need arose, often with a less than politically correct aphorism to justify his actions.

For those of a certain vintage who have only ever known life with mobile phones and wonder what the harm is in being hit by a phone, in the 70s and 80s landline phones had chunky, hefty receivers that could do a lot of damage if they intersected with your head, hands or any part of your body you relied upon daily.

In Life on Mars and similar shows of the era like The Sweeney, the Police were always shown to be right and that the ends justified the means. The shows get you into the mindset of empathising with the main protagonist by imaging the following….

YOU are the Police, the thin blue line between law and order.

You have a suspect, you KNOW he is guilty.

You don’t have the evidence you need to get the case over the line and the clock is ticking so what do you do?

Now let me pull you back to reality, what actually happens is that no Police officer still trying to arrest a suspect is 100% certain of events. The only way to be certain is by having sufficient proof, and if you had the proof the person would be well on their way to being charged, such is the way our criminal justice system is built. Therefore if you were 100% sure you wouldn’t need to go down the route of bending rules to get a result.

Therefore the reality is more like this….

YOU are the Police, the evidence you have is circumstantial and could relate to a dozen different people or sequence of events, so if you squint really hard the suspect kind of fits and you have a gut feeling you REALLY REALLY THINK he COULD be guilty, the clock is ticking so what do you do?

What if you claim you found a crucial piece of evidence in his house to lock the suspect to the crime? This all seems quite easy, you try it and it works and gets the conviction you wanted, this also cuts down your workload in getting said result.

Next week you face the same problem, this time however your suspect has an alibi that blows apart all your evidence, so this time you destroy a crucial piece of evidence that the suspect is using to prove his alibi to prevent your case being blown out of the water.

The week after this, you have someone you have been after for ages, but you know that if you wait for a warrant, he will dispose of the evidence, so you conduct an unlawful search of his house to secure the evidence you need. You find nothing in his house so plant some drugs to justify your search and avoid any repercussions. You face a complaint over this so get your colleague to lie and claim he saw the suspect try to flush away the drugs you planted.

You as a Police officer, are holding the line, protecting the public. To carry out this duty, you bend the odd law, make the odd compromise. One compromise of the law invariably leads to another, which in turns leads to another and before you know it….

You’ve crossed that line that you’re supposed to be holding!

This is what happened in the case of Mr Jamie Penny, a man in his 60s, happily just living his life with his wife, but subject to a malicious prosecution by Northants Police where they tried and spectacularly failed, to supress and tamper with the evidence proving his innocence, in order to try to get him sent to prison.

You might ask,

“why should I Joe Public, care about this man I’ve never met?”

Well the reason is twofold, the first reason is that if Northants Police can tamper with evidence and then engage in a cover up, refusing to investigate what happened to this ordinary member of the public, what is stop an officer taking a dislike to you at some point and meting out their own form of subjective justice to you and your family next time?

If you think the first reason would never happen to you, then the second reason might resonate more with you in this cost-of-living crisis. Jamie’s case that got thrown out in February 2022 resulted in all his court and legal fees, rightly being covered by the losing side. Sadly the losing side being the Crown Prosecution Service, means that such costs are covered from the public purse, I.E. yours and my taxes.

Jamie’s legal fees and the money spent preparing this case amounts to a great waste of tens of thousands of pounds of public money being paid out, simply to cover the Police’s shortcomings. All totally avoidable with much more worthwhile endeavours across the town where this money could have been spent, all if Northants Police had just acted lawfully and honestly.

This waste of funds and resources is made all the more difficult to stomach when you consider how the Police refuse to investigate real crimes reported to them.

How many of you have ever had a theft, vandalism or similar crime that you call up about to report? Those who have will be all too aware that Nick Adderley’s crew of charlatans just palm you off with a crime number and you never actually see or speak to anyone. The reason is that the Police will not bother to invest time and resources to investigate real crimes as this is too much like hard work, but conversely they are quite happy to bill all the overtime possible, by wasting months of manhours on a case where they always KNEW the suspect was innocent with evidence proving it, but had a vendetta against him and prioritised carrying this out over addressing any genuine victims of crime.

Anything to bump up the arrest figures to make some pie charts look good aye.

This is made all the more shameful by how the complaints into this have gone through the usual suppression with CC Nick “Apathy” doing his usual game of being notified of his officers’ misfeasance but choosing to ignore and support the usual cover up. CC Apathy really needs to get a job heading up Wickes as all his actions indicate this man thinks he is running some sort of firm of decorators, just putting them to work every time he wants a whitewash.

How we got to this point is quite a straightforward story. Jamie as a man in his 60s who had worked all his life, lived in a house with his wife that they had bought, they both worked hard, paid taxes and enjoyed attending Motown events in their spare time. They were your average hardworking couple in their 60s, looking forward to their retirement, taking holidays with family and tending to their garden and allotment. Jamie is the epitome of your average working class man, living in suburbia who I imagine most of you reading can relate and identify with.

Their retired bliss however was shattered by a residential property on their cul-de-sac being repurposed as a children’s care home by a private company, albeit one that gets referrals, placements and funding from the local authority of what is now West Northants Council.

You might wonder what the relevance of the local authority funding is. So a little bit of context and history for you.

The above amateur photoshopped graphic while winning me no prizes from Hartbeat, hopefully helps represent things visually.

West Northants Council was formed alongside North Northants Council in 2021. Both emerged out of the ashes of Northants County Council who were disbanded because they became insolvent in 2018 after mismanaging their finances and amassing debts of around £1billion, the first authority to do so this side of the millennium. They also replaced all of the 7 local borough authorities such as Northampton Borough Council.

In 2018 – 2019 Ofsted decreed that children’s services in Northamptonshire provided by then Northamptonshire County Council were found to be;

“failing to keep children safe” and that there were “highly vulnerable children in care who are living in unregulated placements that are unsafe and unsuitable”

Now here is where it gets a little more interesting, Jamie’s wife worked for said local authority and had worked in the sector for over 20 years in, yup you guessed it children’s services. She was a dedicated manager, not afraid to raise issues of impropriety when she uncovered it and whistleblow on any such wrongdoing. In February 2022 her address details were “accidentally” put onto documentation for young offenders being released into the community, by said local authority. The email to the left that has been cropped to omit personal information shows how the local authority admit her details were shared not just once, but with 31 individuals, all starting in February 2022.

Does that date of February 2022 sound familiar?

It should as this was when Northants Police’s lies all got unravelled in court and Jamie’s case was thrown out. What an amazing coincidence that after 20 years of his wife working for them, more underhand crap to put pressure on Jamie and his wife should begin at the same time due to unknown “errors.”

Going back to the formation of the West Northants Council, if you were wondering how the finances of the local authority got into such a state, then it might interest you to know that the head of the local Northampton Borough Council between 2011 – 2013 was David Mackintosh who after leaving the council in 2013, went on to be MP for South Northampton from 2015 – 2017, being forced to step down not long after taking office due to scandals.

Said scandals involved that as head of Northampton Borough Council in 2012 he approved the sale of the Sekhemka statue that had been under the care of Northampton’s museum for centuries, this sale reaching £15.76 million at auction nearly 2 years later. The fallout was the Arts Council revoking Northampton Museums accreditations for selling something they had no right to, gathering public condemnation and resulting in Northampton being thrown out of the Museums Association on ethical grounds. This act of selling the family silverware can be explained away by understanding the eye of the even bigger shitstorm that “Wacky Macky” was nestled in, just waiting for it to all implode.

In September 2013 David Mackintosh authorised a loan of £13.5 million from Northampton Borough Council to rebuild the Sixfields football stadium. In a bit of dramatic and symbolic foreshadowing, the stadium project mirrored what would happen to David Mackintosh’s political career and collapsed totally, with £10.25 million owing as the company responsible went into administration in 2015. Matters were then complicated with one of the developers being found to have made undeclared donations to “Wacky Macky’s” campaign fund to become an MP.

David Mackintosh has since been charged (finally) and with an ongoing criminal investigation, reporting restrictions are in place so nothing more can be said that.

It is very interesting that the criminal investigation, that thing that the Police have control and influence over, took so long to get started…..

What I can say to those not as politically engaged and not up to speed on matters who want a simple explanation, in all cases then just look at how all the dodgy players involved are connected to and help one another out, and failing that in all cases just follow the money…..

So bringing it back to Jamie with all of that context there, when I tell you there were incidents going on at said children’s home that got funding from the local authority, such as underage children being given the keys to cars to turn them on so they can sit in them and listen to music blaring out late at night, something that shockingly enough resulted in one of the children deciding to go a step further and have a joyride in the car, abuse to the residents of the neighbourhood, insufficient staffing and duty of care to these children, even the stabbing of a 16year old boy, you can imagine that living next door to this became something of a blight, not just for Jamie but also for all other residents.

Like any close knit community, they banded together, got organized and began communicating and logging incidents, photographing, filming and keeping a record of events to report to the council’s anti-social behaviour department and Northants Police. With Jamie’s wife knowing exactly what the rules were around children’s services, every single breach was being logged and reported back, causing a LOT of problems for why local authority money was being funded to somewhere so clearly failing.

You can probably already guess that a council that can struggle to keep £10 million safe managed as much success in resolving these issues as a one-legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen lake and were about as painful to watch. Northants Police were also duly informed but for reasons best known to them, decided to ignore everything told to them and aid their friends in the local authority as they have so many times before.

Things would culminate when Jamie was making use of the lighter evenings with the clocks recently going forward, tending to his front garden on an April evening in 2021. While planting his penstemon and growing his gladioli, the care home began blasting out music from what appeared to be the car on the driveway. Jamie asked them to turn it off and have some respect for the other residents, this resulted in a care worker remonstrating by abusing Jamie, coming over towards him at his fence telling him how he was an old man who would be dead soon, albeit in slightly more industrial and offensive language. Jamie took this as a direct threat and responded before defusing the situation by walking away into his house, coming out again and trying to finish his gardening only to be approached by more care workers abusing him at which point he went back inside and gave up on trying to tend to his plants. He was told by his neighbour that she had filmed the whole incident.

Things would escalate significantly as within 30 minutes a Police van arrived, naturally the whole neighbourhood assumed to deal with the still blaring music coming from the children’s care home. Jamie saw two officers walking up his driveway, and like many of us with private driveways visible from the lounge, went to the door to proactively answer it. Jamie, naturally assuming they were coming to question him about the noise complaint, opened the door to be placed under arrest and immediately put into handcuffs. It is worth noting that as a slight man of 5’8” in his 60s he has questioned why in his complaint letters that a pair of younger constables in their 20/30s , did not assess the situation first and immediately went all gung ho slapping the cuffs on.

There are many characteristics that you can drop the ball on, all too often you can congratulate a fat person on their baby they are not carrying, or mistake someone as not being half Egyptian due to dying their hair blonde and having a lighter skin tone, but with access to the Police National Computer to verify Jamie’s date of birth and the gift of a pair eyes bestowed upon both of them by the Lord, these officers cannot mistake an elderly man of 5’8” in his sixties as something other than what they saw before them, and yet in response to the complaint made after this by Jamie, Chief Inspector Pete Basham was all too quick to adopt the default cover up approach, trying all he could to excuse his officers behaviour.

He states that Jamie being an elderly man in his sixties was not his perception from watching the video footage. What was it then Pete? You thought Jamie was a strapping bodybuilder of a man in his 30s towering over your officers at a hulking 7 foot? What? When lying to cover up for your colleagues, you often find yourself where Chief Inspector Basham is here, namely having no facts to back up your bullshit as he fails to support exactly how he didn’t perceive Jamie to be a man of 5’8″ in his 60s.

Much is also made that Jamie did not cooperate and objected to being arrested, I mean put yourself in his shoes, you are complaining about anti-social behaviour, Police turn up to deal with matters and the first thing they do is arrest the person who was threatened without any questions or investigations, going as far to handcuff you the moment you answer the door. Would you be all smiling and contrite?

The basis for arresting Jamie was that as the workers at the children’s home, the same home repeatedly reported for anti social behaviour, had simply SAID Jamie had threatened them and SAID he had a metal pole, this was sufficient reason to assume it as an unquestionable fact and sufficient reason for 2 officers, PC 1396 Tamas Herteli & PC 1622 Becky Wallens to handcuff a man in his 60s without any warning the moment he opened his front door to greet them.

It is worth keeping in mind that this was a wholly spurious complaint, and the only evidence of the event proved Jamie had done nothing, therefore PC 1396 Tamas Herteli & PC 1622 Becky Wallens were acting on nothing more than hearsay and had not bothered to review anything to satisfy themselves there was a shred of truth to the allegation.

When later challenged on this and why they did not perform the most fundamental of actions when someone is faced with conflicting versions of events, namely to ask the other party what happened to help build a picture of events, the officers, following the finest examples set and supported by their boss Nick Adderley, concocted a story how they strongly believed Jamie had a metal pole and could use it against them.

Just to be clear, there never was any metal pole nor have the officers produced any evidence to warrant a subjective assumption Jamie ever had such a weapon. This does not matter as they knew senior officers such as Chief Inspector Pete Basham would be all too happy to ensure any complaint that lands on his desk would be supressed without a proper investigation into matters, and if any evidence did happen to thrown them under the bus, the policy is for senior officers to lie and help cover this up.

Things sadly get far worse than a few halfwit officers being a bit impulsive and stupid in the hopes of chalking up an arrest. Remember that video footage we talked about, well this is crucial to events.

Keep in mind the only evidence the Police had was a care worker at the home making the allegation Jamie had threatened him with a metal pole, and his colleague backing him up. The colleague took around 10-20 seconds of video footage from INSIDE the care home, this did not capture any audio so just showed 2 people gesticulating over a fence.

Jamie during his taped Police interview made reference to this video footage of the altercation that his neighbour had filmed, proving he did not threaten the care worker but in fact how the care worker threatened him, but how Jamie was the one to walk away, and most importantly that were was no metal pole involved at any stage. The crux of a taped interview is to investigate, gather the evidence, review and make a decision on whether to charge or release someone.

The subsequent two complaints Jamie made, both of which engage in a cover up and refuse to investigate, do so by making very vague references to speaking to two of the neighbours who had heard the dispute and after seeing “this footage” it was discounted and not seized as due to the distance you could not make out what was being said.

So to clarify this dancing around the issue to try to cover it up, the two “neighbours” were workers and residents at the children’s care home. The footage referred to was the minimal footage captured by the care worker.

Jamie never refers to the children’s care workers or residents as his neighbours, but this generic term is used by Northants Police to confuse the issue as much as they can. The further concern is why would Jamie be asking for the Police to speak to and get statements from the people making the very complaint against him and asking the Police to review the video footage they took to prove his innocence. It makes no sense and even the Keystone Kops could figure out that maybe, just maybe, there might be a different neighbour and some different footage to review.

Now when engaging in the initial cover up in August 2022, Chief Inspector Pete Basham tried to state that the a 3^rd neighbour had been prepared to come forward and give a statement, but as she did NOT record the incident they discounted this as Jamie being mistaken and dropped this as a line of enquiry.

So that is what PC 1018 Burman says happened. Shall we read what the actual witness herself says in her statement of November 2021, a full 9 months before pedestrian Pete conducted his “investigation” so would have always been aware of.

Oh deary me, the neighbour actually says in her statement she was recording matters, and her version of events, quite crucially backed up by that secret ingredient in any court case of evidence, shows Jamie was not the aggressor and kept leaving his garden to defuse matters, only to have more care workers pile in and then encourage the children in their care to do the same.

So not only does the neighbour give a statement unequivocally stating she filmed the incident, she actually shows the footage to the officer. Their response is to say they are not interested.

Not interested??

Not interested??

Not interested in clear and unambiguous evidence that proves the facts of a case??

The only motivations a serving Police officer would have for supressing evidence to distort the fact were if they had a clear personal motivation in the case and desire to ensure an outcome that does not match the facts. I was dubious about using the moniker “Bent Basham” in this explanation, but when reading all of this, you struggle to understand why Chief Inspector Pete Basham out rightly lied stating the neighbour did not film the incident, when all evidence he was supposed to review as part of his investigation stated the exact opposite. The only motivations I can see is that being honest would have exposed the officers working for him as liars, or perhaps more worrying was that he never bothered to look at the facts and had a predetermined answer ready, just searching for the facts he needed to fit his story. So when faced between allowing an innocent to be vindicated for or ensuring his colleague’s lies get brushed under the carpet, Chief Inspector Pete Basham naturally favoured his colleague. The other explanation is that the moniker “Basham the Buffoon” is more apt as he DID investigate this but failed to actually grasp the facts of the case, producing a piece of fiction that is on par with a child’s failed GCSE coursework.

If you ever wonder how officers like Wayne Couzens got away with things for as long as they did, you see the culture of the Police is one of bestowing responsibility on those too inept to see what is before them, and covering up for one another, no matter how bad the crime nor what innocent person suffers as a result.

Not wanting to miss off any chance to provide the worst possible service to Jamie, the further reply by Laura Hunt the Police solicitor in September 2022 goes as far to double down, blaming Jamie for asking why he did not present this evidence sooner? As though mentioning in interviews, providing statements about it and giving the footage to the investigating officers who refused to take it was somehow the fault of the victim for not doing more.

You can see that Chief Inspector Basham confirms Northants Police had knowledge of this evidence on 12^th January 2022, a full month before the court hearing but STILL decided to press ahead, no doubt trying to pass off their evidence as being the same as what Jamie had submitted and thinking they were smart enough to dupe the court and judge.

The case was thrown out as when Jamie’s barrister presented the footage in court, showing it to be totally different to what Northants Police had provided to the Crown Prosecution Services, so they declined to present their evidence.

But wait, if they never seized any of the footage from any of the witnesses, how they have anything to present in court? If you think this sorry story could not get any worse, then brace yourself. The only thing missing from this farce is the Benny Hill music playing along in the background.

Firstly a little lesson in something called Legal Professional Privilege. In its most basic form, it states that communication and documents, between a solicitor and their client are confidential, and 99% of the time cannot be seized or looked at by Police nor are they subject to GDPR rules. The main reasons being is so fundamental to our British Justice system, it is so that any person accused of a crime or in any form of court case, can have free, unrestricted legal advise without any fear of repercussion. You can speak entirely frankly and openly with your solicitor, before giving any formal statement or undergoing an interview whereby the exact opposite happens and anything and everything you say can be used for or against your case.

As a result of this, Police CANNOT look at, or try to take any emails, letters or documents that have passed between you and your solicitor if they relate to ongoing or imminent legal proceedings. The purpose is quite clear as the Police could simply barge into a suspect’s home, read their line of defence to get advance knowledge of where the case was going, or as happened in this case, steal evidence that proved the persons innocence.

The only law that allows the Police to take such stuff subject to Legal Professional Privilege is The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, PACE Code B 2013. This is not straightforward and lots of paperwork needs to be signed off and things done after this.

There are 3 different laws whereby Police can perform detailed searches, these come under The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, otherwise known as PACE:

• Section 17 – Where a warrant is issued by a Magistrate allowing for a surprise search. Often seen in the media as a raid. Often in tandem with someone being arrested while their property is being “raided”
• Section 18(5) – A detailed search of any premises occupied or controlled by a suspect currently under arrest where there may be evidence present. This needs to be authorised by someone above the rank of Inspector
• Section 32 – The weakest of all searches, only allows a Police officer to search an area in immediate vicinity of where a suspect has just been arrested. I.E. house or car.

Now in a Section 32 search took place long after Jamie had been charged, during this all files and paperwork relating to Jamie’s court case as well as other legal matters were seized.

You may already be saying, but hang on a minute, you just told us the Police cannot do this? That is correct and for the record I want to show the very boring legal bit of the relevant section from PACE. I’ve included it all but it is subsection 9 at the bottom you need to pay special attention to.

32 Search upon arrest.

_{(1)A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or others.}

_{(2)Subject to subsections (3) to (5) below, a constable shall also have power in any such case—}

_{(a)to search the arrested person for anything—}

_{(i)which he might use to assist him to escape from lawful custody; or}

_{(ii)which might be evidence relating to an offence; and}

_{(b)to enter and search any premises in which he was when arrested or immediately before he was arrested for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested.}

_{(3)The power to search conferred by subsection (2) above is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing or any such evidence.}

_{(4)The powers conferred by this section to search a person are not to be construed as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves.}

_{(5)A constable may not search a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2)(a) above unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may have concealed on him anything for which a search is permitted under that paragraph.}

_{(6)A constable may not search premises in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2)(b) above unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that there is evidence for which a search is permitted under that paragraph on the premises.}

_{(7)In so far as the power of search conferred by subsection (2)(b) above relates to premises consisting of two or more separate dwellings, it is limited to a power to search—}

_{(a)any dwelling in which the arrest took place or in which the person arrested was immediately before his arrest; and}

_{(b)any parts of the premises which the occupier of any such dwelling uses in common with the occupiers of any other dwellings comprised in the premises.}

_{(8)A constable searching a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) above may seize and retain anything he finds, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person searched might use it to cause physical injury to himself or to any other person.}

(9)A constable searching a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2)(a) above may seize and retain anything he finds, other than an item subject to legal privilege, if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

_{(a)that he might use it to assist him to escape from lawful custody; or}

_{(b)that it is evidence of an offence or has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence.}

This is quite clear, so naturally you would think that when raising a breach of this to someone in the rank of Chief Inspector, they would not be so stupid as to lie.

Allow me to destroy that notion by introducing Defective Chief Inspector Johnny Campbell who handled the complaint regarding unlawful seizure.

Despite the immense levels of stupidity displayed by Northants Police to date, little Johnny here really is a special kind of stupid, as he seems to think that quoting sections 32 (1) – 32 (6) without including the relevant section 9 about not being able to seize LPP material in replying to a complaint letter, means that any searches and seizure of Legally Privileged material is commensurate with the law because he didn’t include the bit that said he can’t.

Funnily enough when asked to expand on this and explain how his letter contradicts one of the fundamental points of the rules of the law he has to work within, he has been unusually silent.

So with all copies of the 90 seconds or so video footage proving Jamie’s innocence that was stored on phones, laptops and computers unlawfully seized and an outright refusal to return it, none of the witnesses having their footage taken by the Police, ask yourself how an edited, much shorter copy of a video of Jamie’s altercation somehow made it into the evidence bundle Northants Police provided to the CPS and where this came from?

While pondering that question of “where” just remember that the same edited version was withdrawn from evidence when the CPS saw the genuine video that Jamie was able to get a copy of from his neighbour’s phone and produce as evidence. Bullets have left guns slower than how quickly Northants Police folded upon realising their entire scam would be exposed before a judge. This didn’t save them totally as the judge was pretty scathing about how much court time had been wasted, having made Jamie waste days attending court when they always knew he was innocent and had made no efforts to properly review evidence made available to them.

Chief Inspectors Basham and Campbell both report into CC Nick Apathy. CC Apathy being made aware they have lied in May 2022, again in October 2022 and more recently in April 2023, chooses to ignore all communications about this and not initiate any investigations into his officers, sticking his fingers in his ears pretending he cannot hear thus somehow, this makes it all okay.

Jamie has tried to get copies of information in accordance with GDPR, but the Data Privacy Team have continued the charade by ignoring requests and lying. Subject Access Requests were submitted in 2022 and ignored, this was again submitted in April 2023 and ignored.

Since exposing how my own attempts to report a rape were covered up by multiple officers for 8 YEARS and showing up CC Nick Apathy for the truly abhorrent human being that he is for overseeing this cruel and horrific policy, the IOPC have determined that Northants Police need to reply to anything I raise a little faster than 8 years. To this end I’ve used this to help further Jamie’s case. So let us just run through the latest tissue of lies.

On 1^st June 2023, after me making a lot of noise and forwarding the original Subject Access Request of April 2023, Amanda-Jayne Usher a Northants Police member of staff, emailed Jamie and copied me in, directly lying that no Subject Access Requests had been received.

Suffice to say this makes no sense, if I have forwarded an email then surely you can see the original. No explanation is made that the original did not appear to be received or they are searching for, just a flat lie that there is “NO record of any requests received” in Jamie’s name.

Naturally trying to get her to clarify her lie, I ask Amanda-Jayne to explicitly state if the email was never received. I copy and paste the exact email with date and time so there is no misunderstanding.

I go on to ask that if this was a case of the email being received but being subject to some stupid bureaucracy as such not being sent in the right font, or with the right email signature, what efforts did she make to respond and let Jamie know. A snotty reply came that she was not authorised to speak to me and would not respond further until Jamie suitably authorises me.

Amanda-Jayne then responds to Jamie, this time NOT copying me in so Jamie forwarded it onto me. This email states that despite not receiving any Subject Access Request in Jamie’s name, the evidence submitted with the Subject Access Request is not enough and she did not receive all of it. She makes reference to council tax bills and the court costs order for proof of address.

So riddle me this, if she never got any request in Jamie’s name, how does she have part of the attachments in the very email she initially denied receiving?? When you have stopped coughing from all the smoke arising out of Amanda-Jayne’s pants, due to them being hotter than the fires of hell and damnation, then ask yourself WHAT Northants Police are so desperate to hide and cover up by engaging in this charade.

The only possible explanation that I can surmise for so many staff and officers lying as a matter of course?

• When working at the perfume counter at Debenhams or Beatties, you got to use all the testers and samples on yourself, taking freebies home to look and smell wonderful.
• When working at Burger King you get to eat free burgers and customise them.
• If you perhaps worked at a JLR or similar car dealership, you get to drive an XF as your demo for free and get a discount when buying a car.
• I guess when working for the Police, CC Nick Apathy fosters the culture that his officers get similar perks of the job, with the job being law and evidence, whereby you can tweak laws and customise evidence as a perk of the job.

Ending on a more serious note, what Jamie has been through and is still going through is very much alive and carrying on and is something no innocent person should be subjected to. Mark my words that this is not an isolated incident and there are many many other dirty secrets still yet to be revealed about misfeasance senior officers have covered up, along with actions senior officers at Northants Police have taken to feather their own nests and careers.

I will be posting many more blogs, laying out all of the evidence and revealing the connections between officers that they really are trying hard to silence me about.

Please consider subscribing to keep upto date with matters.

UPDATE 07/10/2023

For anyone who has read this and feels strongly about this or any of Nick Adderley’s other wrongdoings, please can I ask you to show your support by signing the petition below

https://www.change.org/p/remove-nick-adderley-as-chief-constable-of-northamptonshire