12 February (Part 2) - Charge and countercharge
It’s exactly a month since a Detective Sergeant phoned me to say that Detective Chief
Inspector Gary Holmes - that’s a new name for you - had decided that there was
not enough evidence to charge Bexley councillor Peter Craske with creating
an obscene blog
in my name. The police accepted that he had the motive, they accepted that some factual
parts of the blog would most likely be known only to Craske and they admitted the blog
was created on a device traced to Craske’s phone line (IP address). But they insisted there
was insufficient evidence to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service.
A few days later I wrote to the Detective Sergeant to let her know that I would
send my file of evidence of police malpractice to Scotland Yard and allege a
conspiratorial attempt to pervert the course of justice. Within a matter of
hours the Borough Commander emailed me suggesting we meet. Quite a change from
not even bothering to reply to my own request for a meeting made two months earlier.
After a few days of fence sitting
I accepted Chief Superintendent’s invitation in
a letter dated 24th January 2013. It listed 17 issues on which I felt Bexley
police had been incompetent, dishonest, corrupt or all three. Three weeks later
I am still awaiting an acknowledgement. I would guess Victor Olisa finds
rebutting my suggestions impossible.
I never did see much point in a meeting and I am in no mood to be sweet talked
out of my intentions, As far as I am concerned that avenue is now closed.
Under
CPS rules relating to “offences with a homophobic element”, failure to proceed
to prosecution entitles the victim to a meeting with the CPS. However that might
only be the case if it was the CPS who had turned down a police application. If
the story emanating from DCI Holmes is correct the Craske case never got that
far. But it did. The CPS was able to turn up all the details on their computer
system just from being provided with the name Peter Craske.
The CPS operates extremely slowly and apparently shrouded in some secrecy but
I now have the names and office addresses of three of their staff up to senior
management level. The information coming from the Crown Prosecution Service is
very disturbing. They say that they advised Bexley police to charge
councillor Peter Craske but they failed to do so. During a telephone call yet to
be confirmed in writing the CPS officer said - not his precise words - Bexley
police fouled things up on a technicality to ensure they couldn’t charge
councillor Peter Craske.
I
met DCI Gary Holmes at
a recent police meeting and I do not believe his
decision was inaccurately relayed to me. Yet the CPS are saying something very
different. There may be a rational explanation but I cannot think what it might be.
Had I known, when writing to Chief Superintendent Victor Olisa,
what I know now there would have been more than 17 accusations of malpractice
listed. Until the CPS enquiries are completed my file will not go to Scotland
Yard but as more information comes to light I become more convinced that a massively corrupt machine encompassing
the Mayor’s Office, Bexley council and Bexley police swung into action to save
Peter Craske’s political career - although given the Google results when
searching for his name any thoughts of total success might be misplaced.
Note: Councillor Peter Craske was first revealed to be the suspect at
a meeting with police on 3rd December 2012.
His name was freely used in subsequent emails until one from Bexley police dated 18th January denied his name had
ever been mentioned. When the CPS were first contacted they needed only the name
Craske to find the case on their computer system. Why the police would want to
deny it I have no idea.