I think that it is approriate to begin with our long term expectation of how things should be vis a vis our police protection. We always assumed that we could rely on the Community Police Team to be trustworthy, impartial, honest and behave with integrity. It was very shocking to find that these attributes were the very last things that we should be offered under the command of Inspector Laura Burgess and her obedient officers.

Rather than overwhelm the electorate with an avalanche of data, let us satisfy ourselves by spelling out what we could expect from our Community Team by way of dealing with a simple case of repeated vandalism - blatantly trashing the green belt by driving vans and cars all over it. The police seemed to be inert. So I asked the Home Secretary what was going on. I don't suppose the GMP liked me doing that.

Here is what the Home Office had to say:

Importantly, the Home Office has declared clearly on the matter, and I quote:

"Mr Bearfleld raises a number of questions about driving and parking on a green space next to a road close to his home. I can provide details of relevant legislation and associated offences. How these offences are enforced is an operational matter for the local police.

It is an offence under the provisions of Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive a vehicle off-road where the vehicle is being driven without lawful authority on common land, moorland or any other land that does not form part of the road or on a footpath or bridleway.

lf the police decide to prosecute for driving off-road without consent the offender, if convicted by a court, can face heavy penalties including obligatory endorsement of 3-9 points on their driving licence.

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 empowers the police to seize a vehicle which they haye reasonable grounds for believing that it is being driven both inconsiderately or carelessly on-road or off-road, without lawful authority and in such a manner as to cause or be likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public

With regard to the insurance position, where a pedestrian is injured in an accident the driver would normally be deemed to be at fault should the accident occur on a road notwithstanding any reduction in liability that might be considered dependant on the pedestrian's behaviour. lt might be possible for action to be taken against a local authority if no action had been taken to stop vehicles being driven off-road, however victims may only receive compensation once for any injury or property damage."

This is what we might have expected if only we had been served by honest, impartial, straight officers and not the ones we actually had been given. These ones of ours worked by deceit, deception, and corruption.


The position is very clear and this letter was sent a year ago. His frantic clinging to the most absurd excuses is no doubt prompted by the knowledge that perjury in an officer is often rewarded with imprisonment. He also falsely claimed under oath that I had broken a truce by publishing a non-existent document. There were other perjuries, too, and I believe that having set out on a course to frame me he was desperate to ensure that it would stick. He thought that I should be very intimidated by him.

So the thing is still in the melting pot and is likely to be a feature of Brooklands for some time to come. I have just registered the whistle blower to be around for years after my death, and I have launched another web site called www.ruffjustice.org which will be used for special roles; not least the platform for a satirical novel and a platform for next spring’s election.

And those good people, all local residents, who supported me in court all heard the perjury!

The police constable, PC Paul Blackburnn is trying his best to avoid charges of perjury. One issue is that under oath he claimed that there had never been any complaint. The police investigation discovered 19 complaint, but Balckburn insists that he received none of them.

Against that claim there is a lot of damning evidence. He telephoned me about one complaint and discussed it. As the Neighbourhood officer he would be the natural recipient of these complaints Also he has always tried to obscure the facts by pretending that it is not an offence to trash the green. He claims support from an unnamed source in the Council who says it is not an offence. The lie appears when in another signed statement he says that for two years he did not know the ownership of the land. If he did not know the land was Council owned how could he be ignoring the complaints because the Council did not care.

Click here to return to the front page.