SEE THE END FOR TABLE OF CONTENTS.
ALSO SEE FINAL SECTION: "13 OCT 2023 – FINAL RESPONSE TO IOPC - LESSONS UK POLICE MUST LEARN"
Réza Ganjavi
MBA, BSCS, BA PHIL
Magna Cum Laude, Phi Kappa Phi, Alpha Gamma Sigma
<contact>
27 November 2022 Update; this version supersedes the 15 November 2022 version]
HAMPSHIRE (UK) POLICE MISCONDUCT AND FAILURE OF ITS DUTIES BY ACTING ON A DISHONEST, MANIPULATIVE, NON-FACTUAL, BASELESS, NON-EVIDENTIAL REPORT FROM THE KRISHNAMURTI FOUNDATION TRUST (KFT, BROCKWOOD PARK SCHOOL) WITHOUT SEEKING ANY EVIDENCE
IOPC Reference Number: 2022/178648
To:
Donna Jones, Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight opcc@hampshire.police.uk
UK Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk, Customer Contact Advisors: Alexandra Bailey, Rebecca Prescottl; Abigail Hart, PO Box 473, Sale, M33 0BW, UK
Acting Chief Constable Ben Snuggs; Olivia Pinkney Chief Constable of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary Olivia.Pinkney@hampshire.police.uk, Ben.Snuggs@hampshire.police.uk
Luke Finnegan, Casework and Business Support Officer, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire, CaseworkOPCC, St George's Chambers | St George's Street | Winchester | Hampshire | SO23 8AJ | 01962 871595 | CaseworkOPCC@hampshire.police.uk
Professional Standards Department (PSD), Hampshire Police, Tower Street, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 8ZD, Tel: 101, professional.standards@hampshire.police.uk
District Inspector, Hampshire Constabulary c/o Mike Minnock (24131) | Inspector, Staff Officer to Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney QPM MA, Hampshire Constabulary, michael.minnock@hampshire.police.uk
UK Charity Commission – For file of Krishnamurti Foundation Trust; Charity Registration No. 312865 – Company Registration No. 1055588
[UPDATED DISTRIBUTION: 9 OCTOBER 2023 - to new Hampshire police management: Scott.Chilton@hampshire.police.uk, Sam.dereya@hampshire.police.uk, Lucy.Hutson@hampshire.police.uk]
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Dear Ms. Donna Jones, IOPC, Ms. Pinkney, et al.
[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Hampshire police has engaged in a serious case of police misconduct. A UK non-profit so-called charitable Trust (which is under a deep scrutiny by our team and we’re about to file a 300-page complaint about them to the UK Charity Commission) filed a bogus, dishonest, false police report and the police naively believed them and did not even bother checking any facts. Without a trace of evidence of any misconduct, the police fired off the most preposterous, bullying, intimidating email that was so flawed that it even cited inapplicable laws. This is what they do in corrupt dictatorship. One would think in the UK the police should care for facts, reason, logic, critical thinking, basic inquiry, truth, evidence – much later in the process, after wasting so much of our time – the police finally went to the Trust and sought evidence, and the Trust failed to provide it because they were lying. That should have happened at the beginning of the process not at the end. Therefore, Hampshire police has totally failed the public, and wasted enormous tax payer funds by its misconduct, and wasted enormous time of the public who was the victim of the police misconduct. Had the police asked the Trust up front, “where is your evidence”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. I demand an apology at the very least.]
I am a part of a team of people concerned with the depth of mismanagement at Krishnamurti Foundation Trust (KFT, “the Trust”) a UK non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization – and its associated school Brockwood Park School.
Our Team follower the rules of the UK Charity Commission which regulates the Trust, and contacted it with our concerns before filing a formal complaint with the Commission.
The Trust’s response to our complaint was as preposterous, arrogant and dishonest, as their mismanagement of the Trust. They brought a bogus excuse to justify them not willing to talk to us about the issues; and they did not address any of the issues.
They upped the ante, by a couple of what we consider to be abusive, totally unfounded police reports.
Raman Patel, Mina Masoumian, Nasser Shamim reportedly walked into a police office in a small village near where Friedrich Grohe lives – they were probably there on a paid holiday; Friedrich is a large donor to KFT whose influence has taken over the place – Raman is on his payroll and part of his “gang” as they call themselves – and Nasser and Mina were taken to Brockwood by Friedrich and Raman, and found their way to the top of the organization which many believe led to a number of mismanagement issues, and after our research started, Raman took on the Executive Director role but in reality not much has changed in the effective power structure; our 300- page upcoming complaint to the Charity Commission contains statements by over 60 people many of whom have been direct witnesses of the alleged mismanagement and alleged mistreatment, like people getting shouted at, and fired in strange circumstances, etc. Our research unveiled critical details about weaknesses in the board of trustees which we believe is the root cause of the management issues.
Swiss police did NOT initiate an investigation because they saw no merit in the case and deemed it unworthy of investigation; and remarked that no evidence of wrongdoing on our part was ever provided by the Trust.
UK / Hampshire / Winchester police wrote an unbelievably ignorant and inappropriate letter, based on a dishonest, delusional report by the Trust (Occurrence 44220247331) in which the Trust alleged unwanted contacts even after they purportedly had requested no contact – which is 100% false since there were no such requests whatsoever prior to any of the contacts in that period – and the Trust provided no evidence whatsoever to support its claims that it had requested no-contact, and it had provided no evidence of any inappropriateness in any of the communications (which were part of our research into the mismanagement of the trust).
And despite a sheer lack of any evidence of unlawful conduct whatsoever, Hampshire police issued a bunch of aggressive warnings and implicit injunctions which it does not have the power to issue (the police is not a court), and other incredibly out of line demands, such as barring any contact with anyone associated with the Trust, and even indirectly – huge concepts which the police embarrassingly failed to be able to define or address the argument which illustrated the ridiculousness and inappropriateness of these concepts in its garbage letter! Even a court of law would never issue such a large net of an injunction, especially when there are absolutely no facts to even warrant any injunction – but Hampshire police gave itself the power to implicitly do so!
The Hampshire police letter was a good laughing matter due to its ridiculousness – but at the same time disconcerting that police was apparently and allegedly played by the Trust, in order to intimidate us – similar to the SLAPP lawsuits which are used by entities to shut criticism up.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are a current topic as it’s become known that they’re abusive tools to intimidate and quash critiques. UK Parliament is taking steps to make them unlawful – just as they’ve been in many States in USA already. In this case, the Trust apparently decided to use the same technique but the cheap route: not by filing a bogus lawsuit, but by filing a bogus police complaint.
After months of getting ignored by officer “PC Will Andrews”, after his initial absolutely ridiculous, out of line letter which in allegedly very much a case of police misconduct – finally policewoman Kerry Croutear “PCSO CROUTEAR 13466” came into the picture.
I asked her the million dollar question: did you see any evidence of wrongdoing on our part? Did KFT/Brockwood provide any evidence that we had ever stalked or harassed or otherwise violated their rights?
The answer was an embarrassing and “no”.
So Hampshire police issues a most aggressive, preposterous, out of line, inappropriate letter that accused a person of having acted unlawfully – and even went as far as citing articles of law which were wholly and substantially inapplicable and irrelevant in this case – without having ever seen any evidence of wrongdoing !!! That is allegedly police misconduct.
A police officer is obliged to care for facts, look for facts, ask for evidence, and restrain oneself from issuing irrational, inapplicable, inappropriate, aggressive, out of line and out of place threats to a member of public. This is not what police gets paid to do. That is now what tax payers expect from law enforcement in a democratic society. This kind of thing happens in corrupt dictatorships. UK should be better than that.
Upon scrutiny, the police agreed to ask KFT to provide evidence to support its supposed claim initially that it has evidence but hadn’t provided it.
Unfortunately for the police, KFT was not able to provide any evidence even the second time around – and instead, cunningly, apparently told the police that the problem is solved as there’s been no more contact – and like a parrot the police came back and relayed that nonsensical statement which in effect, really meant “we cannot provide any evidence to support our bogus allegations”.
Bottom line is, KFT was neither able to provide any evidence that there was any unlawful activity – nor was it able to provide any evidence that they ever communicated that they didn’t want to be contacted prior to the alleged communications which were not abusive in any way, anyway.
The fact that there have been no contacts with KFT has absolutely nothing to do with the police’s ridiculously comic tragic inept incompetent irrational irrelevant letter which to make it worse was in the form of an aggressive threat.
It is difficult to assume how incompetent a police officer could be to write such a ridiculous letter of accusations without ever seeing any evidence of unlawful conduct. How and why did that happen? We don’t ultimately know but two factors come to mind:
1) KFT managed to manipulate the police to believe the story it was telling the police was true and that in reality unlawful conduct had occurred – while in reality, neither the story was true nor any unlawful conduct ever occurred.
2) The police fell for KFT’s manipulative presentation and lie that it had evidence (officer Croutear contended that initially KFT said it had asked there to be no contact – but when she went back and asked for proof of that, KFT failed to provide the evidence, which would have been easy to do had it been true – but it was an entirely false notion, a fictional narrative, a lie, a delusion which KFT fabricated – which is further evidence of its mismanagement and right in line with the kind of conduct it has had, as explained in our 300 page report featuring statements of over 60 witnesses and associated analysis.
3) Regardless of how manipulative KFT may have been, Hampshire police failed its duty by not seeking evidence, and acting based on a delusional, dishonest, fictional report.
Once all these facts became very clear – which clearly showed the police has acted inappropriately – officer Croutear engaged in trying to rationalize this major failure of the police by:
Calling the initial police letter which was very aggressive, preposterous, out of line, and not based on facts as “words of advice”. It was not words of advice at all. It was a preposterous aggressive threat, and even worse, issued without the police having seen any evidence of misconduct – it’s a kind of thing perhaps a thug would do: try to bully and intimidate a person -- and in this case, use bogus references to articles of law which are totally inapplicable to try to scare a person. What the hell is the police thinking? Who do you think you are? Above the law? You have no right to talk to public like that, and falsely accuse people of unlawful conduct for which you’ve not seen any evidence!
Diverting the subject by bringing up totally irrelevant Public Access team’s engagement early on – which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, and does not justify the police misconduct.
Stating an ambiguous nonsensical coverup statement: “We did not and do not have any further concerns” – of course you had concerns – it wasn’t until I demanded you to provide any evidence that you were not able to provide, that you decided you had no concerns. That’s a failure of police duty and respect for public rights.
Hampshire police assumed a member of party is guilty and blasted him with a preposterous aggressive letter with irrelevant laws cited – before examining the facts and seeing any evidence of wrongdoing. Where’s the principle of innocent until proven guilty? The contrary approach is a thug attitude.
Of course you don’t have further concerns because there’s no evidence of any wrongdoing. KFT’s report was totally bogus.
The police misconduct didn’t end there. In this fictional narrative KFT and police created together – void of any evidentiary facts whatsoever – they continued their delusion by assuming that I adhered to the police’s preposterous tragic comedy letter which was not worthy of adhering or not adhering to. You don’t adhere or not adhere to garbage. Only reason our team has not contacted KFT since then was because we did not need to – if we needed to, we would have absolutely done so despite the garbage letter form the police. But in furthering its own delusion (or cover up, rationalization attempt), the police decided to even pad itself in the back assuming there was adherence to its garbage letter. A garbage letter is not even worthy of consideration let alone adherence.
“Thank you for adhering to our advice”. Are you kidding? Your aggressive irrational drivel was not an advice, and it provided zero value in terms of benefit or advice, and did zilch in terms of influencing any behavior.
The police has wholly failed to substantiate its delusional garbage aggressive threat letter. And its way of rationalizing that fact make the matter even worse. This matter deserves a thorough investigation by the authorities overseeing the police, unless you’re comfortable with the police acting like in corrupt dictatorships where aggressive threats are made to members of public in order to intimidate them, without any evidentiary facts to support the allegations.
I would like to know if Hampshire police management endorses this inept behavior of Winchester police, or will it take disciplinary action so the next member of public is not exposed to such incompetent abuse of police power.
You have wasted enough of my time with your abusive misconduct. But if you are carrying on a sincere investigation, I’d be happy to provide any further details on why Hampshire police has failed the public by falling for the manipulative dishonest conduct of a UK Charity, and not having the basic initiative to ask to see evidence !! That’s police-101. I used to train police officers! Evidence matters! Truth matters!
Regards
Reza Ganjavi, MBA
APPENDIX 1 – Helping The Police Understand The Case
24 NOV 2022 EMAIL TO HAMPSHIRE POLICE "Professional Standards Department Investigator"
After I filed the complaint I received an email from an investigator who clearly had no clue about the key arguments in the case – either he had not read the complaint carefully – or just went along with gossip stories / hearsay he received from his colleague Ms. Croutear, or he was biased to try to protect the police and therefore went along with a fictional narrative that contained material falsehoods, or by default they try to close cases so he gave it a try to see if I’ll go along with the fictions he sent me – or, some or all of the above.
I had to take the time and go over the details again to help him understand the case – if he had read the complaint carefull this step would not have been necessary.
The following is my email to him. After I sent this, he wrote back that he’ll send it for escalation. Afterwards, I also filed a second complaint against Ms. Croutear because I realized based on what Mr. Trusler had said that Ms. Croutear had lied about me. That email is the next Appendix.
~~~
Dear Mr. Trusler
I do not know if the behavior I observed in Hampshire police is it modus operandi or not. I hope not. I have had a terrible experience with the Hampshire police which in my view has exhibited a lack of interest in evidence, has acted in a knee-jerk fashion without consideration for truth, has failed its basic duty to act on facts and not fiction, has acted irrationally, rudely, unprofessionally, and has assumed some people are stupid enough to accept the fiction it tells them and just go away.
Therefore I deem it necessary at the onset of my interaction with you -- and you being part of the same entity you're supposed to oversee who's acted ineptly in the past -- that I state fifteen (15) key points for your information, before we go forward. The list is so long because of Hampshire Police being so incredibly out of line in the way it handled this case, so a long list of reminders is necessary before I engage with yet another person from the same entity that I complained about!
I'm not at all optimistic that you being a part of Hampshire Police would be objective enough to see or admit your colleagues' alleged misconduct. But I keep an open mind.
Given how much Hampshire Police has wasted my time by their inept handling of this case, and you being part of the same entity, I want to cut my time engagement to as short as possible. I will therefore not be interested in engaging with you like the engagement with Ms. Croutear which took months because it took her weeks at a time to address communications.
I am not interested in any discussion around legal matters if the opposing party, in this case Hampshire Police, does not have the integrity to speak the truth, be earnest, and instead would want to engage in twisting facts and cunning games.
My objective in having filed the complaint was to get the police department to see its problem and do something to improve itself. I cannot shove this down its throat. If it has the wisdom to see and learn, so be it. If it doesn't, I might escalate the matter to whatever level I deem necessary, in order to at least make sure someone that counts sees the problem -- if I feel there's any hope for Hampshire Police. If I deem it hopeless (if you exhibit the same kind of behavior the complainees have done, I might not even escalate -- or I might decide to take other escalation paths including litigation, if the police itself is not able to see its own mistakes and learn from it.
In legal matters, evidence, facts, truth are important.
In legal matters, sequence of events are important.
In legal matters, hearsay, and unverified claims have zero value.
In legal matters details and subtle points matter. Therefore, legal briefs need to be studies in their entirety and not superficially.
Matters of justice should not be assessed based on the weight of irrelevant arguments.
Legal matters are very different than gossip, personal politics, cunning games, mind games, power play, and other such ways of relating which in some cultures are much more dominant than others. These things have no place in legal matters.
It's important for a police officer -- for anyone -- to be aware of any bias oneself might have. Awareness is key to freedom.
A word about manners, politeness, rudeness. First, the facade is not as important as the substance. One could write a statement that is perfectly polite on the outside (no harsh words used) but the substance may be incredibly rude, and vice versa. Second, some people consider challenge of their irrational statement as impolite. When politeness in some cultures come at any price, including backbiting, it loses its significance.
I sincerely hope you're interested in first taking the time to understand the facts, unlike policeman Will Andrews, and care for truth, and have the judgement necessary for every good police officer to discern facts from fiction before you react -- something the complainees allegedly failed to do.
Lastly, so you know who you're dealing with and why I don't take the nonsense the complainees tried to tell me, I have three university degrees with high honors, and you can see the list of my accomplishments on https://www.rezamusic.com/about and https://www.rezamusic.com/testimonials; and regrettably for the Hampshire Police, I'm not a dumb person who would just accept the kind of unacceptable arguments that your colleagues have brought as reasonable.
I grew up around judges and lawyers as my father and grandfather had stellar legal careers, and I've studied law and philosophy, and I've been a professional business analyst among other things, and I've trained police detectives at some stage in my career, and I'm very aware of what the proper role of a police officer is, how the police should conduct itself, how it should approach issues, and what rights the police has.
Now, in regard to your email announcing that you've taken on this case. I noted that your title is an investigator. I hope you take into account what is true and not what is convenient. Your email gives me the impression that you have not read my complaint carefully enough. I will take the time to bring to your attention some subtle points in the complaint which you seem to have missed. All of this is repeat information but you seem to have missed some of them, or didn't apply enough analysis to understand them.
Freedom of speech is a basic right in the UK and most of the modern world. Without it a society slips into corrupt dictatorship. So it's a very important right and must be cherished.
Speaking one's mind is a protected right - that includes sending an email to someone which expresses facts and opinions. There's nothing unlawful about that, until it is abusive, which means that it contains abusive content.
None of the emails I ever sent to KFT/Brockwood were unlawful. Even your police officer who is familiar with the case told me that that is not the problem. KFT has never been able to complain about even one single email that ever contained unlawful content. That is an extremely important fact for you. So you cannot refer to any of the emails they provided to you as evidence that justified Will Andrews’ preposterous email to me.
Hampshire Policeman Will Andrews, who is the primary complainee in this case, in fact failed his duty to ask for evidence (not just hearsay or verbal claims) that showed if KFT had actually asked me to not contact them (which they never did and haven't done to this date).
When I say the police failed to look at evidence up front before acting (and thus breaching its key duty to act based on facts and not fictions) I am speaking about a particular, important piece of evidence which is, a purported communication from KFT/Brockwood to me requesting that I do not have contact with them. It's extremely important that you understand that that artifact does not exist - and never existed - and it's a fiction - a lie that KFT told the police when they filed their bogus complaint:
Ms. Croutear told me that KFT/Brockwood told the police that it had made that communication early on, purportedly barring me from contacting them (which they never did), prior to the beginning of the year, and she said KFT contended that the purported emails they complained about were sent after such point. This is materially and factually false.
Upon my challenging the police's total lack of in inquiry, and totally taking KFT's lies at face value, Ms. Croutear went back to KFT and asked for that evidence.
This request should have been made to KFT at the onset, before he sends me his preposterous letter.
Instead it was asked by the police, months later, and only after I challenged the police, that hey, where the heck is your evidence?
Policewoman Croutear informed me in writing, after asking KFT to substantiate their verbal assertion (lie) with evidence -- that KFT/Brockwood failed to provide evidence that they ever asked me not to contact them prior to the purported emails. In fact, they never did, even after the purported email, and have not to this date.
KFT failing to provide the evidence means they never had it, which means it never happened, they never asked not to be contacted prior to the purported emails which were absolutely appropriate and lawful.
Therefore, Will Andrews failed to ask for that evidence up front -- believed Brockwood's lie -- and acted on it by sending me a preposterous, totally inappropriate, off-base email, which is a perfect example of police misconduct. He accused me of having acted unlawfully without having any evidence of any unlawful conduct -- sending emails to people is not unlawful -- even from different accounts -- as long as the content is not unlawful and my emails were all lawful.
A footnote regarding different accounts: I do have different email accounts, but one of the email accounts which we as a team use to communicate with Brockwood is not my personal email address but it's our team address, and different members of the team have used that email address in the past.
Again, you need to understand this -- if it's difficult ask Ms. Croutear or ask me to explain it again -- that the issue was not the emails I sent them -- those emails were all lawful -- we were investigating a case involving over 60 witnesses, and I contacted Brockwood to get their feedback, and later, we saw that we needed to complain to the Charity Commission and it mandated that we contact them prior to filing with it.
The crux of the legal argument is, whether Brockwood asked me not to contact them at all. And the answer is No. They never asked me not to contact them. If they had asked, and if I contacted them for arbitrary reasons afterwards, then that might have been considered unlawful -- but that was not the case here. Brockwood never made such a request, and none of my emails were unlawful anyway.
Therefore, Will Andrews should have absolutely never sent that preposterous letter to me, citing totally irrelevant laws that had absolutely nothing to do with me, and arrogantly and rudely even making a implicit injunction that he police absolutely does not have the power to legally order. Only a court of law can issue injunctions, and a judge always needs to see solid reasons to justify an injunction. In this case, there was not a court, and no judge, and the policeman failed to Brockwood's lie and made a grave mistake of simply saying "fine, you claim that you asked Mr. Ganjavi not to contact you - show me the evidence". Will Andrews failed to do that.
If Hampshire police management tolerates its officers making aggressive demands on the public, without even having asked for the evidence necessary to indicate unlawful conduct, then the police department is hopeless and no better than police force in corrupt dictatorships -- because that's what they do in corrupt countries: evidence doesn't matter.
Since you seem confused about this, but it's clearly outlined in my complaint -- I reiterate: KFT lawyer's letter to our team (not to me personally), which was sent to our lawyer, stone-walled our 14-count demand for accountability, per Charity Commission process -- and this was done months after the purported emails they complain about.
Just to check yourself, if the thought occurs to you that their lawyer asked me not to contact them prior to the purported emails, you have your facts completely mixed up.
Regarding Ms. Croutear, my complain against her is much milder than against Will Andrews whose alleged misconduct was mind-boggling. And funny that he disappeared from the picture immediately after my initial push-back and my challenging his off-base remarks that were rooted in fantasy not facts.
I appreciated that Ms. Croutear took the time to hear me out and eventually, after months of sporadic communications, and my walking her along the lines of logic that the police had never bothered to think / analyze / assess before (which is mind-boggling in itself) -- she arrived at the crux of the issue: Did Brockwood ever ask Mr. Ganjavi not to communicate with them? And she went after that, and came back with the golden answer: NO. No evidence! Empty claims! Lies! But "no cigar"!
My issue with Ms. Croutear is from that point onward.
By the way, be careful not to fall for hearsay, gossip, fiction -- I got plenty of fiction from Hampshire Police so I'm warning you. If you hear a claim that sounds sensational, fact check it -- in this electronic age everything can be traced -- all emails are stored on your system -- demand copies of things -- demand substantiation. You might get surprised.
Ms. Croutear exhibited either a lack of competence in analyzing, putting two and two together -- or -- she just decide to tell me a story to wrap the case up in a very inappropriate way.
She asked Brockwood for evidence. Their response apparently was: well sorry, we can't blah blah -- < there is no evidence > -- but he hasn't contacted us so everything is ok.
She came back to me -- and like putting salt on the wound -- like a parrot repeated that line. This key -- understand this please: That statement assumes that I complied with Will Andrews garbage letter. That's very painful. I considered Will Andrews' letter as just that: garbage -- and you can be sure, it did nothing -- zilch -- in influencing my behavior towards Brockwood. It just happens that I did not contact them because I didn't need to -- but if I do need to, you can be sure I will contact them -- and to this date, they've never asked me not to contact them -- and the police does not have the right to be their spokesperson -- the police does not have the right to speak for a party which lies to the police and fails to provide evidence of unlawful conduct.
As for our team, we also have not contacted KFT because we did not need to -- but if we need to we will. We are in the final stages of filing a 300+ page complaint with the Charity Commission.
Ms. Croutear answered all my emails till the very end. At the very end, I wrote to her and asked her to tell her sergeant the facts because I'm about to escalate this case. That was the only email she did not answer and I haven't written to her ever since because I chose to escalate the matter. I also have not copied her on any emails because the problem is a Hampshire Police management issue.
I hope that answered your questions. I'm happy to take your call or email should you have further questions.
What I need to know from you is what is the escalation path, should you decide to shelf this complaint and endorse the misconduct of your fellow policeman.
Regards
Reza Ganjavi, MBA
28 NOV 2022 – REZA GANJAVI'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FROM POLICE INVESTIGATOR WHO IS INVESTIGATING THE ALLEGED POLICE MISCONDUCT, TO VERIFY THE CASE SUMMARY, AND STATE RESOLUTION DEMAND
The police investigator finally took his time to read the complaint - and came up with a summary prior to starting investigation, which he wanted me to verify - and he asked me what resolution I seek. My response to him below.
~~~
Dear Mr. Trusler
Thanks for the summary which is a huge step forward from the first summary you sent me. The summary you wrote contains some inaccuracies and omissions that are important to include but that is a huge work for me to try to make your summary to the level that includes all key points of my complaint and not include nuance that alter my complaint. I suggest the following edits but before doing so, I must make it clear that your summary is not my complaint. My complaint contains my statements and should be considered as the basis for your investigation and not your summary. You can use your summary for your internal purposes but I will not endorse it as accurate or inaccurate to replace my complaint. I hope you understand and appreciate that.
Some suggested edits (again even doing these edits it doesn't mean your summary can replace my complaint -- my complaint to the police remains to be the body of the amended complaint I filed and not your summary).
PARAGRAPH 1.
The Complainant states that Hampshire Police failed in its duties by taking a dishonest, manipulative, non-factual report from Brockwood Park School and acted upon it without having any evidence whatsoever of any unlawful conduct. The Complainant believes the report was made in an effort to cover the mismanagement of the Trust. The Complainant states the police wrote an unbelievably ignorant and inappropriate letter, based on a dishonest, delusional report by the Trust.
- Please add at the end: Complainant states the police failed up front, before issuing the letter, to seek evidence from the Trust to support the statement they made during the police interview which stated that they had explicitly asked the Complainant to not contact them, prior to the purported emails, as described in detail in the Complaint.
PARAGRAPH 2.
The Complainant states that Hampshire Police issued aggressive warnings and implicit injunctions which it does not have the power to issue, as well as other unacceptable demands such as barring any contact with anyone associated with the Trust, and even indirectly.
- Please add at the end: Details are stated in the Complaint.
PARAGRAPH 3.
Complainant states he was ignored by PC Andrews for months following him issuing the letter and when PCSO Croutear was asked if she saw any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, she stated no.
- Please add at the end: PCSO Crouter stated that Complainant action might have been unlawful had Brockwood explicitly asked for no contact prior to the purported email and the police believed that statement was made to the Complainant by Brockwood but fact is it such statement was never made, and upon follow up by PCSO Crouter, Brockwood failed to provide evidence of their statement to the police, which proves they lied to the police, as described in detail in the Complaint.
PARAGRAPH 4.
PCSO Croutear tried to divert the issue by bringing up irrelevant Public Access team engagement, which the complainant says has nothing to do with the subject matter.
My suggestion above for Paragraph 3, makes your paragraph 4 make more sense -- referring to the "issue".
Your statement "which the complainant says has nothing to do with the subject matter." is not true -- you ignored the word "early on" -- it was related to the subject but early on, but had nothing to do with the subject at that point in time.
- Please replace the entire paragraph with this revised version: PCSO Croutear tried to divert the fact that Brockwood had not been able to substantiate their statement to the police, by bringing up irrelevant Public Access team engagement which happened early on in the process -- and -- by implying that the Complainant had complied with PC Andrew's demands which was absolutely not the case -- the Complainant considered PC Andrews email as wholly worthless, as described in detail in the Complaint.
PARAGRAPH 5.
The complainant alleges that PCSO Croutear has been dishonest in her response to the Professional Standards Department when contacted about the case.
I didn't say she was dishonest in everything she told you - and I do not know what all she told you. I said she was dishonest in a particular statement that you said she made to you, because it contradicts with the facts, as my analysis illustrated in the Complaint.
- Please replace the entire paragraph with this revised version: The complainant alleges that PCSO Croutear made a dishonest statement in her response to the Professional Standards Department when contacted about the case, as described and analyzed in the Complaint.
~~~~
Regarding your excellent question: "I would also like to know what your expectations and hopes are for the outcome of your complaint."
1) I would like an admission from Hampshire Police that before you send a strong letter to a member of public, accusing them of unlawful conduct (while no unlawful conduct had occurred) and go as far as sending them articles of law (which were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case) and go as far as making a demand for modification of that purported unlawful conduct (while there was never an unlawful conduct) -- that the police ought to examine the claim of a complainant to see if it has merit or not -- and in any legal or law enforcement setting this is done via evidence.
I have never seen, in my dealings with the police -- as I was a victim of several racist attacks, and I was a victim of vicious cyber stalking attacks; and I have trained police officers at some point in my career -- that the police would ever allow itself to issue such a letter to a member of public without having some confidence that unlawful or illegal activity had occurred; and this is done via examining evidence.
Hampshire police told me that when KFT/Brockwood complained, they told the police that prior to any of the purported emails (none of which were unlawful) that they had informed me that they do not want to be contacted.
Policeman William Andrews just accepted that statement as a fact. That was his failure and the core of my complaint. Correct conduct by him would have been to ask them for evidence.
I pushed back that Hampshire Police's false accusation needs to be supported by evidence and I demanded to see such evidence. Hampshire police failed to provide evidence to support Policeman William Andrews' inappropriate letter and told me that the only reason the emails were considered unlawful was because KFT/Brockwood told the police that they had asked me before any such purported email not to contact them -- which was a lie.
Upon my insistence that the police substantiate its inappropriate letter, the police agreed to seek evidence (which Mr. Andrews should have done on day one), and went back to Brockwood/KFT and ask for that evidence -- and to their surprise -- and not to my surprise -- Brockwood/KFT failed to provide any such evidence, because what they said had happened had not happened: there was never such a communication, and that communication would have absolutely been key for determining if there was unlawful conduct or not -- as per the police itself -- because the emails themselves were not unlawful, so the only potential unlawful conduct would have been, if they had explicitly asked to not be contacted and that was not respected.
As a side-note, even if they had asked to not be contacted, that did not mean that contacting them would be unlawful under all circumstances -- for example, Charity Commission rules requires contact with a Charity -- but that's arbitrary since we contacted them as a group much later in the process and they stone-walled us and told us not to contact them again, which was not surprising since they had also ignored many parents and staff and people who deeply care for the place, who had written to them including a letter signed by tens of parents which did not get a response.
Also it's noteworthy that in your first email to me, you had assumed that the statement of KFT to our team's lawyer after we demanded accountability of their alleged mismanagement as per Charity Commission rules, of not wanting to be contacted, was the justification that the contact was unlawful because it was against their wish to be contacted. The timing in that assessment was completely off -- and -- the aforementioned statement was written to our team months after those purported emails.
I do not believe that you mixing up these things was not influenced by KFT's alleged intentional misrepresentation of facts to confuse the police. I wasn't in the room to know what they told you but Policelady Croutear told me that she was there, and KFT told Mr. Andrews and her that they had made an explicit communication to me stating they do not want to be contacted prior to the purported emails -- which was never the case -- so it seems just as you got the facts wrong, Mr. Andrews got the facts wrong and his mistake was to go with hearsay instead of demanding to see that concrete piece of communication - which did not exist because it a fabricate falsehood stated as fact, by KFT.
I want to know if that behavior of William Andrews is tolerated and accepted as normal within Hampshire police -- or does management think that William Andrews should have asked for that key evidence that would determine the lawfulness of the contact prior to shooting off that unbelievably inappropriate letter (which you tried to downplay by saying he made "suggestions" -- those were not suggestions -- they were accusations and demands without any judicial quality evidence to support them.
I also want to know if the police is obliged to be prudent in sending articles of law to public, to make sure at least some of the requirements of the cited laws match the facts of the case. That was not the case, therefore it seemed his shooting off articles of law was a way to try to intimidate me -- and an average person would have been intimidated, but happen to be legally educated. William Andrews email came across as a bullying attempt and absolutely nothing more.
And if Hampshire police thinks it should have acted differently, then the officer should be disciplined since his action cost me a lot of time and stress, as per your internal processes -- it's not for me to say what that should be -- I'm even happy if he receives a warning or anything that makes him think twice next time before sending off such an inappropriate email with an allegedly bullying tone to a member of public. This is my demand at this stage and if you can meet this I close the case. Management may also want to use this as a learning opportunity to improve the department as a whole by including this topic in the training.
Kind Regards
Reza Ganjavi
To investigator of police misconduct, regarding KFT's motive for lying to the police
Dear Mr. Trusler,
Further to my Amended Complaint, here's an illustration of KFT/Brockwood's likely motive for lying to the police.
As you know, motive is always of interest for law enforcement and judiciary. KFT/Brockwood absolutely had a motive for filing this bogus police report. You make know about SLAPPs -- if not please look them up -- abusive lawsuits entities make to gag criticism. I believe that was their motive, but they absolutely had no civil case and didn't want to waste the money and risk a huge backlash, by filing a SLAPP, since it's a current topic in UK Parliament and legislation is being considered to penalize SLAPPs, like is the case in the USA and some other countries. So they chose the way that was free of cost: allegedly abuse the police power to help them achieve their determent, quashing objective.
The police's mistake was to fall for the bogus report and believe their narrative which the police much later discovered to be fallacious. That work had to go in up front before the nonsense letter was shot off to me. The police should apologize to me and use this opportunity to learn and improve its service. Ms. Croutear told me drunks lie to police all the time; officers should be taught that sober people, and those who carry the clout of a seemingly respectful organization, a school, what could be nobler than a school -- do also lie.
I hope that helps.
Kind Regards
Reza Ganjavi
27 NOV 2022 EMAIL TO HAMPSHIRE POLICE "Professional Standards Department Investigator" REGARDING MS. CROUTEAR’S LIE
This complaint should not be confused with the original complaint (above) against the police department and Will Andrews and Ms. Croutear. The revelation that she lied to the investigator came to my attention in the email that the investigator sent.
~~~
Dear Ms. Croutear
Mr. Trusler wrote: <snipped in this document because the statement Mr. Trusler stated as a fact contained multiple falsehoods which he reportedlty quoted Mr. Croutear say.>
You know the concept of "politeness" in the UK culture is a very funny one. I asked a good British friend how could it be that backbiting / backstabbing / gossip / being double-faced, is so tolerated in the UK culture. He said because it's so important to be polite that people don't show their real face so they can be polite, but their real face shows up after the person they were polite to leaves the room !
If that is true, no thanks -- I'd rather be straight faced and honest with people, than to stab them in the back with gossip.
Another aspect of this is subjective measurement of what is considered to be polite. If you don't like what I say because I call out an incompetent handling of something, for example, that can be called impolite but that's just an over-used and misused label.
Regarding your lie to Mr. Trusler -- sorry but you are lying and that is very uncool. I don't know why you lied -- to make a fake story to make me look bad to cover for the mishandling of this case by the police?
Here's the proof that you lied:
The last email I received from you was on 4 November 2022.
That was in response to my email of 30 October 2022 which was a short follow up to my email of 7 October 2022 which you had ignored for 23 days.
Which means up until 4 November 2022 you did not have my email blocked (if ever).
On 4 November I responded to your incredibly out of line email while I was outside, and realized on 14 November that it had had some typing errors since I had audio-dictated. I corrected the text and sent it.
My email of 4 November and corrected version basically said tell your Seargant the facts because it's better he hears it from you than from the top of the command chain.
I could not believe my eyes, reading that you wrote that you assumed I had complied with KFT's demand (their bogus complaint based on a big fat lie which the police naively believed without asking to see evidence -- and by evidence you well know what I mean -- I don't mean the purported emails but evidence that they demanded that I did not contact them) -- and you told me they were unable to provide the evidence -- but that for them everything was ok since I had complied.
I did not comply with Mr. Andrews’ preposterous email -- it was so off, so wrong, so out of line, so out of touch with reality of the case -- because the police had not bothered checking the facts of the case and just went with hearsay. I do not comply with preposterous demands from an authority that doesn't even understand the facts and didn't even bother seeking concrete evidence in a simple case where direct evidence should have been available.
Anyway, my point is, your lied to Mr. Trusler and told him that I had sent you many emails after you said you can't help and you blocked me as a result. You didn't block me at least until 4 November, so the many emails must have been just the 4 Nov email which was not impolite at all. It seemed to me that your sergeant is not getting the facts. Just as Mr. Trusler didn't get the facts. The first email he sent me was very inaccurate and showed he either had not read the report with any care, or was just given stories.
With regards to the line "continued to do so after she advised she could not assist you any further."
That is also a lie. I only followed up with you after you agreed to contact KFT/Brockwood to demand evidence, which you came back to me and said they didn't provide it.
So, there you have it -- multiple lies you said to Mr. Trusler -- and the police should be the entity that upholds the law, and should act honestly because truth is a major pillar of a civil society of law and order.
You told me that drunks lie to the police all the time -- in justifying that Brockwood cannot be held accountable for lying to the police. Now you lied to the police.
I bet Mr. Trusler did not obtain a copy of all our correspondence and read them before writing that falsehood to me as a fact. That wasn't the only thing. He wrote other false things as a fact -- e.g. about Brockwood's lawyer -- and he got the sequence of events wrong -- and so on. My response to him is reprinted below.
Mr. Trusler - please file this as a new complaint against Ms. Croutear -- or do I need to do that myself directly with OPCC and IOPC?
Also, is the long email I sent you with the detailed description going to be included in the case file or do I need to send it separately as an exhibit to IOPC and OPCC?
Thanks & Regards
R. Ganjavi
Some emails I sent to the UK police follows in this appendix. William Andrews was the first policeman I dealt with – he was absolutely awful, and was clearly not interested in the truth, fact, evidence, before spewing a totally irrational, inapplicable, preposterous, bullying email. Then he went missing in action after I pushed back, rationally, and challenged his preposterous remarks.
Then came on the scene, policewoman Kerry Croutear. There were looong delays in between her communications. Almost every time I emailed her I got an out-of-office auto respondent. I had one call with her after 2 months of trying, and her passing the buck and trying to avoid the call – but I wasn’t going to go away! Eventually she tried to obtain evidence from KFT/Brockwood but they failed to provide it – so she realized KFT/Brockwood were lying and “disappeared”.
She refused to have the second call because she knew she could not sugar coat the police misconduct. But she wrote me a totally out of line email where she informed me first, that Brockwood had not been able to produce any evidence – and secondly, the out of line part, she apparently repeated Brockwood’s remark to her, which assumed I had adhered to Mr. Andrews’ preposterous, garbage email – while Ms. Croutear knew that was not the case – she knew exactly how I felt about that garbage letter – I do not adhere to garbage!
Also included in this section: correspondence with IOPC and police management.
[Regarding the last paragraph, the feedback I got earlier from UK police was that people lie to the police all the time – so that was their response to the fact that KFT/Brockwood lied to them (if what the police told me is true about what KFT/Brockwood told them – and upon push-back, KFT failed to provide evidence to the police – which confirmed they were lying. So the police says people lie to police all the time – and used the example of a drunk!]
Hello. Please tell your sergeant all the facts which I suppose he does not know based on the response you sent me. I've been a victim of police misconduct. And as a matter of principle I want to discuss it with you before I start a series of complaints against the police. And my inquiry to you had nothing to do with the data protection stuff so you saying that I was advised etc etc has nothing to do with this. It has to do with police misconduct. It has to do with police not caring for the truth. It has to do with you first off sending me a threat letter and implicit injunction which apparently you did not have the authority to do so, and there was no factual basis for it (which you tried to sugar-coat in your email as merely suggestions).
You just accepted what KFT/Brockwood told you, as a fact, and you never bothered to check the evidence (which didn’t exist because they were lying). And second time around when you went to them to ask for the evidence - they failed to provide it and instead gave you some lip service which shows they're just making a mockery of the police and the police is just naively accepting what they're saying as a fact and relaying it to me as a fact. To this date you have not seen any evidence, yet PC Will Andrews wrote that nasty letter which was absolutely unacceptable and I am going to seek justice against the police misconduct. So tell your sergeant first all the facts because it's much better that he hears it from you instead of from the top of the command chain. And please tell him he has one week to respond to me. All I'm asking for is a phone call.
It's clear based on your reaction that the second time you went to them they told you that oh sorry we cannot provide the evidence but everything is okay now. If that's not the case tell me. But I'm sure if they had shown you the evidence you would have told me. Fact is that they don't have the evidence because they're lying. And the police just fell for their lie. And instead of being transparent about it the police is trying to cover it up by giving me some irrelevant arguments and just expects me to go away.
I have been a victim of police misconduct, and I have been a victim of a false police report. Part one I know how to handle and I will if your sergeant doesn't get back to me within a week, but the second part I don't know what to do with right now so I am reporting it to you. Are we going to initiate a case against KFT/Brockwood based on the fact that they lied to the police about me? And when challenged they were not able to provide evidence to substantiate their lie. And that lie caused a police investigation therefore they allegedly committed false accusation – is that illegal under UK law? Can you initiate the paperwork for that case or do I need to write this complaint and sign it send you a PDF documents? Please advise.
Regards
Ms. Croutear
I have not heard from you since our email exchange on 7 October 2022. That's 23 days ago.
I will initiate a series of legal actions against the police if I do not hear back from you within 10 days (CoB 9 Nov 2022).
I need to speak with you on a brief call. Let me know when you're available please.
Regards
R. Ganjavi
Hello you are making a lot of assumptions. First off they have not been able to tell you on which date and time they made the purported demand; that means they did not, but you are assuming that they did, and that they did so before the purported emails (which were absolutely proper). Therefore your assumption is false unless you have evidence and you do not. I'm sure you understand that date and time of events are important when you're dealing with assessing evidentiary facts.
On what basis do you assume that they have done?
Secondly you're assuming that I have adhered to your demand which you did not have the legal authority to male because you do not have the legal authority to issue an injunction. So all your assumptions are faulty.
I'm about to escalate this because the police misconduct has been incredibly high. But I would like to have a discussion with you before I do so and hopefully I will not have to do, so if you can address a couple of questions and we can get on the same page so when are you available for a talk?
Regards
R. Ganjavi
PS -- your colleague’s absolutely inappropriate and abusive email to me where he allegedly abuses his police powers and he failed to address the fact before he wrote that email, has absolutely made no difference in my conduct and decision of whether I should contact them or not. So don't pat yourselves on the back. I am very very upset at your organization and mishandling of this situation and utter disregard for truth. When can we talk?
Dear Ms. Croutear
Unfortunately I cannot close this case until we talk once, otherwise I'd have to escalate the matter. I have a couple of quick but very important questions to ask you.
I've been waiting for your response since 23 September.
Kindly let me know when you're able to have a quick call.
Many Thanks and Best Regards
Reza Ganjavi
[I made this overture to her so hopefully she would agree to do a call. In a call she wouldn’t be able to hide or manipulate words or give me nonsense twisted answers. I was a totally willing to drop the case if I had received some convincing answers and came to see that the police really did its due diligence and acted properly; but that did not happen].
Dear Ms. Croutear
You've been very kind and cooperative in helping with this unfortunate and unnecessary case.
My intention is to bring this police matter to closure. I believe you have the same intention as stated in your previous email.
Would you kindly schedule a brief call for us to go over a couple of items to wrap this case up? It would be best to agree on a time and date, for you to call me or I call you.
Thanks so much
Best Regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Croutear
Thanks much - I appreciate the feedback.
(1) Have you asked Brockwood to substantiate their claim that they informed me they don't want to be contacted before the purported emails (which were absolutely proper)?
(2) Have they responded?
I have one more question please but it's easier if we could have a quick call at your convenience, perhaps after the answer to (1) and (2) above.
Many thanks indeed.
Best regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Croutear,
1. Did you receive the complaint below?
1.a. It would be very kind of you to insert it in the same dossier as the original bogus complaint they made.
1.b. And to evaluate it as a new complaint.
It's important that both the above are done. 1.a. is very important in order to have a fair history, and 1.b. is important because there could be a law that prohibits lying to the police. You said you heard them say they had informed me but they hadn't -- before the purported emails (which were totally proper).
2. Did you inquire about Brockwood's claim (lie) that they informed me not to email them before the emails they complained about?
3. Could I get a response about status of the complaint via email please?
Many thanks and best regards
Reza Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Croutear
As per our earlier conversation please find a complaint that should be inserted in the police file related to the bogus complaint Brockwood filed (in both paper and electronic format). This is very important otherwise the police records are defamatory for me.
Please confirm that you've filed this complaint in the corresponding file.
Furthermore, kindly initiate an evaluation of the complaint and if there are any laws that Brockwood broke by lying to the police, and the bogus complaint, then please press charges and refer the matter to a prosecutor.
I also await your answer after you talk to them about providing evidence that they informed me to not contact them before the purported emails which were very proper.
Many thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
[Excerpts]
Much later in the process they told our group as we were communicating with their lawyer that they didn't want to be contacted. I'm not even sure if they have the right to ask such a thing given public has a right to communicate with a charitable Trust that's getting its police service for free for example because they don't pay taxes !! But nevertheless, we haven't because we didn't need to.
We checked our communications with the trust. The only time they told us (not me personally) to not contact them at the end of May. As a group we have had no communication with any of their trustees or management ever since. I sent an email about the same time because I had just learned that one of the KFT Trustees disparaged me with a preposterous lie and I had to set the record straight. When they lie about you, they should expect an answer. My email was rational and civil. Mind you we also were threatened by one of their trustees that if we complain to the Charity Commission we'd get sued!!! Neither I nor our team have contacted them since June because we didn't need to. If we need to, I don't believe they can legally prevent us unless they get an injunction from a court which is impossible given we haven't acted unlawfully.
I also need to know from the police on what legal basis you demanded that I do not even contact people who are not even at Brockwood! That was very unreasonable. Mr. Andrews went all out with extreme demands despite having no evidence whatsoever of any improper or unlawful conduct! [That’s what they do in corrupt dictatorships!]
I would like an apology from the police if you do not have evidence [which you do not because KFT/Brockwood is lying; and later the Police asked KFT/Brockwood to provide evidence and they failed to do so, because they were lying].
Thanks and Kind Regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Croutear.
I have waited a long time for a conversation with the police about this matter. Could Mr. Andrews speak with me while you're away?
Kind regards
R. Ganjavi
PS -- I have sent written things many times. I have asked for a call from the beginning. 40 days have gone and a call has not materialized. Last time you wrote to me you asked for when would be a good time, and the next step was going to be a call. Now you put the ball again in my court. I have provided everything necessary from my end. The police has not provided a call that I have asked for 40 days. You don't need any preparation. When can we have the call that you agreed to have? I gave you my availability times. I will wait for you to return from vacation. Mr. Andrews has disappeared from the picture it seems. Have a good vacation. When you return, please let's schedule a call and we take it from there.
Best regards
R. Ganjavi
Could you ask Mr. PC Will Andrews to contact me please?
Dear Ms. Croutear
Thanks for your email. Many thanks for asking the disclosures team to contact me. I haven't heard anything yet, and the last contacts we had were not clear -- it sounded like we were talking about apples and oranges -- either they didn't understand what I'm after or they gave me a canned response that didn't address my question.
I look forward to speaking with you. I can be reached at <> UK time from 3 pm onwards, almost any day. Please let me know what day and time works for you. Alternatively I can send you a zoom link or can call your number if you provide it, at the designated date and time.
Thanks and best regards
Reza Ganjavi
Hello. Thank you very much for the message. When will Mr. Andrews be back in the office? I need to speak to him. Abd how can I get a copy of the report that was taken or was written? Nobody else is taking care of these two questions so I await an answer from yourself by the end of the day on Monday next week please. Thank you.
Best regards
R. Ganjavi
PS - Alternatively, since you were involved in taking the report, I'm sure you can answer my questions. Could we schedule a call please? I have some very important questions for the police and it's most efficient that it's handled at your / Mr. Andrews' level.
By the way, I have been waiting for Mr. Andrews' answer for more than one month. You wrote that he's recently been out of office. So for several weeks he ignored my request for contact, I suppose.
Please let me know by end of day on Monday 8 August 2022.
Thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Croutear
I hope you had a nice vacation.
I'm still having nightmares about this case and am very very distressed about it. I've been waiting for talk to the police about it for 2 months and now am looking forward to talk to you As Soon As Possible. I am not seeking therapy from you, don't get me wrong. But I have some key unanswered questions that I need answers to, and I know you can provide it, and I know I'm entitled to it, and we can cover them on the call you promised we will have.
So what date and time are you available and what mean? I call you? You call me? Skype? Zoom (I can send link)? How about in the next few days? You don't need any preparation. Things can always be taken offline if any action or inquiry is necessary, following the call.
Many thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Mr. PC Will Andrews
I have attempted to reach you numerous times but you have continuously ignored me and have not written a single word of reply.
I am forced to escalate the matter. I've already explored the escalation path via Ms. Pinkney, and Ms. Donna Jones' office is waiting for my escalation letter. I want to give you one last chance since that would be the most sensible and efficient way of answering my questions. You apparently took the report from Brockwood. I have some specific and very important questions for you but you've refused to contact me with any answers or my request for a call.
When can we have a talk?
I'm escalating the matter if I don't hear from you by end of day 8 August 2022.
Many Thanks & Kind Regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Pinkney
Is this the correct email address for you? I have an escalation case for your attention. I received an email from one of your police officers, Mr. Will Andrews. I subsequently requested a conversation with him about the subject he reached out to me about - in particular the totally irrelevant articles of laws he sent me -- but my requests have been ignored.
I like to send you a summary statement of the issue and perhaps you could help.
A bogus complaint has been made about me from a UK non-profit which we are investigating and reporting to the Charity Commission -- and I do not appreciate getting threatened by the police by sending me articles of law which are totally inapplicable and I have some specific questions for the police.
Thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
Dear Ms. Adcock
I tried to email Mr. Will Andrews and I got the following message:
william.andrews@hampshire.police.uk
Your message couldn't be delivered because you don't have permission to send to this recipient. Ask the recipient's email admin to grant you permission and then try again.
My previous request to him for a conversation has been ignored. I am now left with no choice but to escalate the matter. Could you please inform me of the proper escalation path? How do I reach Ms. Olivia Pinkney? Could you provide her number or email please? I have questions for Mr. Andrews which are independent of the Right of Access request which you helped me with and is in progress.
Please advise.
Thanks and best regards
Reza Ganjavi
[She confirmed that my email was forwarded to policeman Will Andrews who was the policeman who sent me the first preposterous, inappropriate, out of place, ignorant, arrogant letter without having bothered to examine any evidence and just took KFT’s lies as facts – which is a serious police failure of duties, in my opinion. And it turned out that even when his successor asked KFT for evidence they failed to provide it, which proves they lied to the police that they had issued a do-not-contact request prior to the date their bogus allegations happened.]
Many thanks indeed.
Best regards
Reza
Dear Ms. Adcock
Many thanks. Do you mean the officer dealing with personal data request? Or do you mean Mr. Andrews?
The case with Mr. Andrews is a much bigger subject than personal data request.
Or is it that Mr. Andrews just sent the email to me and is no longer responsible in dealing with the case (which is not about personal data)? Is that how your process works? In which case I will escalate the case to the Ms. Pinkney. I need a conversation with the police. Mr. Andrews would be the best person in my view since he issued the [preposterous, inappropriate] threat / order / sort of [bogus] injunction but I don't believe the police has the power to issue injunctions so it wasn't a formal one or maybe in UK it's different. I've sent him some questions and I have heard nothing back from him. I have a consolidated list of questions and I really prefer to discuss it with him or whomever is responsible for the (in our view) bogus threat that Brockwood made -- I prefer not to escalate something unless absolutely necessary.
Is Mr. Andrews responsible for the case/email he sent me? If not who is? This is a separate case than the information request and I should not have to wait 2 months (as the website said) to have a conversation with the officer in charge of Brockwood's bogus complaint.
Thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
…Or perhaps you could forward this to him. Many thanks.
Dear Mr. Will Andrews
I hope all is well and thanks for your service to the community.
I left a message for you on Monday. Is it possible that we can have a call sometime? I have a few questions about your email. I've already requested via the proper channel to get a copy of any letter Brockwood sent you [turned out it was a verbal bogus fabricated dishonest complaint which they were not able to substantiate with evidence]. But it is very odd that they've done so because we have NEVER engaged in any improper actions against them. We merely responded to their last response to the letter from their lawyer, related to our Charity Commission process demand, and that was the point when they said they do not want to be contacted. Prior to that there was never any such request, and there was never any improper behavior.
It seems their complaint is similar to SLAPP lawsuits in intention and we are not happy about that at all. Before taking any further steps in this regard, we want to understand the facts. Our team has a few specific questions for you and I would appreciate a call to address those questions.
Due to time zone difference, I may not answer the phone when you call but please leave a message with a number and I'll call you back - or email me your number.
Please let me know if we can or cannot have a call, and if not, what is the proper way to communicate with you.
Thanks and best regards
Reza Ganjavi
Dear Susan
Could you send me Mr. Will Andrews’ email address please.
Many thanks
Reza
[Policeman Will Andrews apparently fell for KFT/Brockwood’s dishonest, manipulative report -- and failed his duty of checking their claims by requesting to see evidence (which does not exist because KFT was lying), and failed his duty of treating the public fairly, intelligently, based on facts and not based on fictions – and sent a preposterous, inappropriate, inapplicable email. He sent it to multiple mailboxes including our team’s group mailbox which is used by more than one of team members. He did not have the courtesy to answer any of the emails I sent him in response. Zilch!
And then he went missing in action. A long time later, after my insistence that the police should be held accountable for its alleged misconduct, a policewoman by the name of Kerry Croutear came on the scene – and when I asked what happened to Andrews, she said he’s left the unit. I don’t believe anything Hampshire police says.
It seems he didn’t expect the kind of push-back to his preposterous email, and didn’t have the nerve to come back with anything and just disappeared!]
These are a series of emails I sent Andrews:
~~~
Dear Mr. Andrews
Thanks for the note.
Please realize that
1) This is a case of the public having the right to criticize a UK non-profit, tax-exempt organization which seeks public funding.
2) There has been no case of improper contact from our side, ever.
3) If they have any evidence to the contrary, I would like to receive that from you.
4) According to applicable laws, I believe I have the right to obtain what you have on record.
5) I suspect they have either absolutely been unable to cite a single case of improper conduct – and they have cooked up lies.
Can a non-profit, charitable, tax-exempt organization regulated by the UK Charity Commission demand that an individual to not contact them if that individual has never engaged in any improper behavior, and that individual merely exercised their freedom of speech? Please advise.
For your information, we have no intention to contact them. We contacted them via our lawyer and their response via their lawyer was utterly dishonest and preposterous. Our next step is to go to the Charity Commission.
Many thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
PS –
FYI -- this is not about me. We are a team -- we are friends of Mr. J. Krishnamurti -- I am merely one of the team members -- and we are very upset with what has gone on at Brockwood Park / KFT which is so contrary to the wishes of the founder, Mr. Krishnamurti. We have testimonies/statements from over 60 people who claim they have been mistreated.
A few more questions:
1) To be clear about what "indirect contact" means: if they have a Facebook page and I contact them on their Facebook page for example (which I have no desire or intention to do), that is direct contact. So what's indirect contact? If I tell Mr. X. to tell Brockwood something, right? That would be indirect contact. Just trying to understand what you mean, so everything is clear.
2) Please define what "its associates" means. Does this mean people who work there? Does a school have the right to prohibit contact with individuals who work there even if a person is a friend of an individual at a school, for example? Isn't that the call of the individual and the school does not have the right to dictate contact level between individuals?
3) We had lunch with one of the Trustees of KFT. Brockwood Park School is a subset of KFT. We are old friends with the trustee and she agreed to have lunch with us. Since KFT is a superset of Brockwood, I guess it would be ok if such a contact happens again. Please correct me if we're wrong about that. Thank you.
Regarding the laws you quoted -- we have NEVER engaged in any conduct that would satisfy any of the requirements listed below. Complaining to a nonprofit about their conduct is NOT harassment. They may not like to hear it but the public has the right to do it, and in fact the US Charity Commission requires that such a contact is made prior to filing with the Commission.
Best Regards
[After this email PC Will Andrews went missing in action (LoL) – I’m sure he did not think he’d get this level of pushback, analysis, in-depth probe, and challenge to his preposterous comments. I don’t know what he was speaking: talking to a legally ignorant person and just intimidating them by quoting a couple of articles of law, as though the person is preposterous to not analyze them and find out they’re totally inapplicable?! Is this how the police behaves in the UK? Like a bully?]
On 16 November 2022 I received an email from IOPC asking if I want to file a complaint – like it wasn’t clear !! I said yes !! Here’s their answer on the 18th.
~~~
Dear Reza Ganjavi
Thank you for contacting the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 16 November 2022 regarding your complaint against Hampshire Police. The case reference number is 2022/178648 which you should quote in all future correspondence.
We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against them.
Our role is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force, which must decide whether to record the complaint. Recording means that a record is made of the complaint giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
I have passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Hampshire Police.
You should, usually, hear from the PSD within 15 working days.
Please contact them directly if you have not had a response from them, using the details below;
Hampshire Constabulary
Professional Standards
Tower Street
Winchester
Hampshire
SO23 8ZD
Tel: 101
Email: professional.standards@hampshire.police.uk
If you have any further information you wish to pass on, please forward it directly to the above address.
I have attached a guide and FAQs sheet on the police complaints process for your attention.
Kind regards
Alexandra Bailey
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Email: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
Website: www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Twitter: @iopc_help
21 Nov 2022: Professional Standards Department of the Hampshire Constabulary informed me today that they have "recorded" the complaint (means they've accepted it and opened a case -- they do not accept all submitted complaints). Now the case has to go through a formal process. Case number CO/3501/2. PublicComplaintsMB@hampshire.police.uk
_________________________________________________________
Important emails to entities investigating Hampshire Police appear in Exhibit 1, 2.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Trusler & IOPC
Please find attached a 35-page PDF which is the comprehensive compound complaints against Hampshire police, including my email history with them (since Officer Croutear apparently lied to you about our email exchanges). In summary this is a complaint against Hampshire Police; against Officer William Andrews, primarily, and a smaller complaint against Officer Croutear.
It's important that the attached PDF dated 27 November 2022 supersedes the 15 November 2022 complaint, as it includes updates and, email history, the second complaint that addresses the gossip Hampshire Police fabricated, and a detailed email I wrote to you to help you understand the important facts that were in the original complaint, and to address the falsehoods in your first email to me, which showed you had not understood the crucial details of the case before responding to me - or you were just repeating what you heard (hearsay) without checking the facts.
I understand you will be escalating the case - please make sure the attached complaint is the current one. I do not plan to make additional revisions.
Many thanks and best regards
R. Ganjavi
Mr. Trusler wrote today and it seems he’s handling the case himself without escalation. Previously he implied he’s going to escalate it since I asked for escalation – but in reality I said I would like to know the escalation path should be decide to close the case, which was what he seemed to be in a rush to do without having even understood the facts of the case. Now he’s handling it himself. Good.
~~~
Good morning Mr Ganjavi,
I will ensure your complaint is recorded as per your later version and will be in further contact shortly to explain what will happen next.
I would also advise that there is no need to copy in the IOPC, the Chief Constable, et all at this stage. I will provide details of the review process that exists should you remain unhappy with the outcome of your complaint once I have finished my handling of it.
Kind regards,
Police Staff B Trusler 12329
Professional Standards Department Investigator
Complaint Resolution Unit
Hampshire Constabulary
Dear Mike
Many thanks for the update. I received a very strange email from the officer in charge of investigating the police misconduct. It was clear he hadn't even bothered reading the complaint in any detail, had the facts of the case all wrong, but was already siding with the accused police officers by default it seemed: Hampshire police auditing Hampshire police!
I responded with another take at explaining the situation, and clear illustration that he had responded without understanding the facts of the case which were clearly demonstrated in my initial complaint. That is now included as Exhibit 1 in the compound Amended Complaint I sent with the last mail. Now he's looking at it.
It may be helpful for the Chief Constable to read through the Amended Complaint to have a feel for what is going on in his organization -- aside from the formal complaint process which is now ongoing.
Best regards
Reza Ganjavi
~~~
Good morning Sir
Please find this acknowledgement regarding you complaint sent to the Chief Constable. I have contacted our professional complaints dept and am satisfied this is being reviewed by the appropriate department/person and once all the relevant material is reviewed you will be updated in due course. Please direct any future communications directly with the officer in the case of the investigation.
Regards
Mike
Mike Minnock | Inspector
Staff Officer to Acting Chief Constable Ben Snuggs
Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary
Dear Mr. Trusler
FYI, We're filing out complaint with the Charity Commission at 10 am Monday UK time.
One of the many cases of mismanagement by the Trust was the abuse of police power in order to quash free speech / free press. They tricked you into believing they had asked me to never contact them -- which to this date they have not.
Keep in mind they're a tax-exempt entity and police is funded with taxpayer money. So their abuse of police power is doubly bad!
Best regards
Reza Ganjavi
Dear Mr Trustler
I hope you're having a nice Holiday Season and I wish you the best for the new year.
I thought it would be prudent to share with you the following ideas just to make sure they are clear and understood:
1) To date, KFT/Brockwood has never asked me not to contact them.
2) They have continued to contact me including very recently. As a matter of principle, anytime you write to somebody you should expect that they may write you back!
3) They have been bad-mouthing me behind my back to people and I happen to have a strong network and I received a communication from someone who has a written communication from Brockwood very recently where Bill Taylor lied about me, so this kind of behavior naturally invites a reaction because nobody likes to be lied about. And in this case I sent a Cease & Desist letter to him and I had every right to do so.
4) The only no-contact statement they sent us, it was not to me personally, but it was to our team where KFT said they did not want to have any further communications from us, which is not clear if they legally could do given we acted based on Charity Commission required process, and they're a public charity which means if we see the necessity to communicate with them we have the right to do so. It's a moot point since we didn't need to.
5) The notice to our team was sent many months after the purported notice to me which never happened and KFT/Brockwood lied to the police about.
6) And they continued to contact not just me but also one of our team members, even after they told our team not to contact them! Which is very hypocritical on their part and makes their demand a joke, because if you contact someone you should expect a contact back.
7) The lie they told the police should not be tolerated by the police -- although, your colleague resembled it to a drunk lying to the police -- she said we're used to getting lied to !! KFT/Brockwood should be better than a drunk! After all, the founder of the Trust spent a lifetime talking about importance of truth.
8) KFT/Brockwood lying to the police is an abusive of police authority. Police falling for KFT/Brockwood's lie is a mistake of police which should have asked KFT/Brockwood to provide evidence that they had asked me not to contact them -- which they never did. Months later police asked KFT/Brockwood and of course they didn't have any such evidence because they were lying.
9) There was never any issue with any of the emails that I had sent. I specifically asked the police to provide a concrete example of any communication by me which would satisfy the elements of the laws your colleague recklessly sent me in that bullying, intimidating message you call "suggestion". Your colleagues could not provide any such example because all my emails were lawful. Therefore, the police told me the only potential unlawful action would have been if they had explicitly asked to not be contacted -- which they hadn't but lied to the police that they had. So there was no issue with any content of any email. It was about the question of respecting wish to not be contacted but the wish was never made! And hasn't been made to date, by KFT/Brockwood or their lawyer, to me directly. Police is not a lawyer and it acted based on a falsehood told by it as fact.
10) Consequences of Police's mistake and the letter they sent me wasted a lot of my time and energy and resources, and caused me a lot of distress and pain, so the police should apologize to me and take internal action so no member of public is again subjected to this misbehavior of police.
I am waiting for that apology.
Best Regards
Reza Ganjavi
I filed a complaint against Hampshire Police because of the preposterous way they handled a case. I did so because I believe one of the most democratic countries in the world should have a clean, objective, sincere, diligent police force. I used to train police detectives. At the heart of any law enforcement or judicial role is interest in truth. That distinguishes a clean society from a corrupt dictatorship where the police, prosecutors and judges are compromised for the sake of convenience at the cost of truth.
When truth is stepped on in a society, and it's tolerated, the core pillars of that society become shaky. And that is exactly what has happened at Hampshire Police.
There is no point in rehashing the details of my complaint. It is well documented and anyone interested in getting at the truth can read it, vs. the manipulative, delusional fiction that your so-called investigator has cooked up in order to cover up for police misconduct.
I need to make this really short, as I have wasted way too much time trying to get Hampshire police to remove its convenient blinds and see the light. So let's get to the heart of the issue:
My complaint against police misconduct was assigned to Bruce Trusler (12329).
Mr. Trusler's first response:
screamed that he had not even bothered reading the complaint
he was arrogantly trying to pretend that he had read the complaint
he was grossly clueless about the complaint, even the big concepts let alone the details
he grossly got his sequence of events wrong
Yet, he arrogantly proposed that I would buy his inept line of reasoning based on zero-grasp of the complaint -- as though I'm some kind of a dumbo who can be manipulated by his title -- and had the nerve to "propose" that the case is closed.
I could not believe my eyes. Is this how you handle complaints against the police in the UK? Apparently so, exclaimed his later conduct!
So I took a lot of time, and lot of patience, and in my mind, tried to bring him up to speed. I spoon-fed him the information in a way even he could grasp, swallow, digest.
After all that fatherhood and apple pie, he started speaking, and uttered the same clueless babble that clearly showed he absolutely had no understanding of the some core aspects of the complaint, such as simple concepts like Sequence of Events.
If you're in law enforcement, you should embrace and inhale sequence of events.
Instead, Mr. Trusler use sequence of events as a kind of puzzle where you take pieces that don't fit and try to force them to fit and then say, see, they fit!! They don't! But it doesn't matter because Hampshire Police is apparently not interested in the truth -- in facts -- and it's apparently more interested in creepy motives, such as trying to cover up for each other (I guess especially when it comes to a foreigner trying to hold you to account).
So when a country's police department does that, it puts the whole society at risk because the police is the agent that is supposedly in charge of maintaining peace, order, sanity, decency -- and when the police itself acts so unethically and irresponsibly, the whole society gets at risk.
Mr. Trusler's first contact with me is all the evidence anyone needs to understand what I'm saying is true.
His later communications just sealed the deal further.
In his last response, he *still* got the sequence of events wrong and was force-sticking pieces of the puzzle that didn't fit. He fast forwarded several times to use a fact, as basis for something that happened months ago. The rest of his response was just as catastrophic but I will not even waste time trying to address it. One example is enough. If eyes cannot see one thing they cannot see many things.
Krishnamurti Foundation Trust / Brockwood Park School came to your office and lied to your officers around a matter which involved them trying to quash freedom of speech, our freedom, as we were working according to Charity Commission guidelines to hold the Trust accountable -- and KFT/Brockwood apparently decided to try to abuse the police power to try to quash our freedom of speech -- and in the process, according to what the police tells me, they lied to the police.
This was proven and confirmed by the admission of your own officers unless I was lied to by the police to cover up earlier misconduct -- but I somehow believed it, that KFT/Brockwood would come there, lie, and not have evidence to support their claim. After scrutiny by me, the lady officer went back to KFT / Brockwood and asked for evidence for that which Brockwood had said, which the Police had naively believed because they thought they were dealing with normal people who speak honestly.
The Police lady told me afterwards that KFT/Brockwood FAILED to provide the evidence -- because they had no evidence, because they were lying. The police failed to ask for that evidence when the accusers came in, which is police misconduct to begin with. It's a failure of your duty to act on a complaint without seeing evidence if there is even a case. And it turns out that there was no case.
The police lady said that KFT/Brockwood told her and her fellow police officer that they had communicated with me prior to any emails received from first of the year that they did not want to be contacted. Fact of the matter was there was no such communication. So Brockwood lied. And that piece of the puzzle was extremely important because according to the police lady herself since there was nothing unlawful in anything I had ever written, the only cause for complaint that KFT/Brockwood would have would be if they explicitly asked not to be contacted and that was not respects. They never asked that prior to that January.
If they had provided such a notice, they could have easily said here you go, this is an email we sent! But they couldn't because they never made such a communication, and that was a show stopper for the complaint, and that is exactly why the first officer should have never even contacted me, or at most would have asked me for feedback -- but instead, he wrote this absolutely preposterous email which was so absolutely irrelevant and so absolutely inappropriate. He even cited a couple of laws which were so absolutely unrelated to the facts. And he even tried to bully me and threaten me as though he has powers that are beyond his realm -- who are you trying to scare? I grew up with judges and lawyers and I studied law among other things and am well-versed in philosophy of law and jurisprudence.
So this was a classic case of police misconduct, which Mr. Trusler tried to cover up with his absolutely inept or unintelligent or biased or arrogant approach. Mr. Trusler's disgustingly irrational and off response was that, oh (months later) Brockwood/KFT asked our team not to contact them, which they didn't have the right to do anyway since we were acting according to Charity Commission rules and had every right to contact the Charity. But that was months later DUH!!! -- it was not a direct communication to me -- it was to our activist group, via their lawyer we were communicating with until she walked out when we asked her to substantiate the lies that they told her -- but she obviously couldn't.
But that was not the point Mr. Trusler -- you failed to grasp the clear facts at the very beginning and you're still failing to grasp the clear facts at the very end, but I seriously doubt that you're so unintelligent and have comprehension issue -- I believe it's much more likely that you are intentionally manipulating these things to get the result that you want which was the result that you wanted from the first day you contacted me to manage my complaint without even having bothered to read through it -- or -- you're so caught in prejudice against a foreigner, perhaps suffering from some superiority or xenophobic complex -- or it's yours or the Department's modus-operandi to always conduct its so called investigations (that look more like time wasting, and taxpayer money wasting exercise to cover up for your fellow colleagues' misconduct -- or you're so caught in bias that it's unconscious and it just blinds you from grasping some simple facts -- or you're too lazy as you obviously were in the beginning that you allowed yourself to contact me and say let's close the case without even having read or understood the case. These are not empty allegations; if anybody at Hampshire Police is interested in facts (I doubt it!!) -- if truth matters there (I doubt it!!) -- then they can look at the correpondance. Start with Mr. Trusler's first response to me and make sure you look at the response I sent him which called out how incredibly off he was and that's a perfect proof that Mr. Trusler engaged in police misconduct himself in "pretending" to "investigate" police misconduct. It was a pretense. He tried to fool me with that first email. And an investigation based on a pretense is at best a theater, a joke, which UK tax payers are paying for!
Sorry but truth is sometimes bitter!
The above is just a part illustration of police misconduct -- as I said I will not go through listing all the police misconduct instances again, that show, in my view, an ethically challenged Police Department which seems more interested in acting stupid in order to justify twisting of facts to achieve the end it wants which is to not take responsibility for its misconduct. The rest have already been documented and communicated to you, and churned and manipulated and stupefied by your so-called investigator.
The Hampshire Police's apparent dysfunctional complaint handling, and police misconduct, will go on; and preposterous, arrogant an abusive way that my case was handled will be practiced again with other victims like me, because you are hopeless in my opinion.
Nevertheless, if any of you are sincerely interested in using this as an opportunity to improve, which was my only intention from the beginning for wasting so much time on you, feel free to contact me. But I hereby close the case. I chose not to go through the official escalation process because I view your entire organization as hopeless. So this is not an escalation, it's an adieu to a hopeless organization with disgraceful conduct that I was a victim of, and a joke of a review process, as I have directly experienced.
Regards
Reza Ganjavi, MBA
+1 213 207 6535
abigail.hart@policeconduct.gov.uk
opcc@hampshire.police.uk
Olivia.Pinkney@hampshire.police.uk
Ben.Snuggs@hampshire.police.uk
CaseworkOPCC@hampshire.police.uk
michael.minnock@hampshire.police.uk
william.andrews@hampshire.police.uk
professional.standards@hampshire.police.uk
enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
PublicComplaintsMB@hampshire.police.uk
To: UK Police Misconduct Office
What an embarrassment of a review !!
In My Opinion:
UK Police has really proven, time and again, in my view, to be utterly missing wisdom and intelligence at a level I would call intelligence.
The tragic comic part is the level of incompetent effort by the UK Police to cover up for its own incompetence and gross mismanagement and disrespect of public rights.
In the latest episode of the review, Ms. Abigail Hart of the UK Police Misconduct office got the facts of the case so badly wrong that her contribution was just to add confusion which in fact serves the police in covering up for its misconduct. It's already a matter of fact that one of the key cases of Hampshire Police's gross misconduct was to mix up the timeline of facts in order to help it cover up for its own initial gross misconduct which it never had the character to just admit and apologize -- we wouldn't be having this conversation if UK Police had the character and brevity to admit to its misconduct.
Instead it tried to cover it up by giving me a totally rubbish argument, using a fact from months later, to justify for an event of months earlier, claiming that the fact from months later was already a fact months earlier, which it absolutely was not. Next Wednesday is not last Wednesday!
I've already outlined the specifics and pointed out exactly where UK Police used a cunning, deceptive, illogical, irrational argument to justify its misconduct towards a member of public, thus violating the rights of that member of public who is entitled to being treated based on facts, and not some lie someone walks in the police office and feeds the police, i.e., KFT / Brockwood Park School management lying about having issued a non-contact request while we were in the process of investigating a case of gross mismanagement of the KFT/Brockwood as part of the Charity Commission Process prior to a complaint we eventually filed with the Charity Commission and other UK Regulators which reportedly led to regulatory action.
UK's Hampshire police acted most stupidly, preposterously, rudely, irrationally, and fell for the lies it was fed, without seeing evidence.
The non-contact request came MONTHS later -- when we were in contact with KFT/Brockwood's lawyer (who quit on them after we asked for evidence).
To cover up for its preposterous action, Hampshire police said well, there was that non-contact request at the time Brockwood filed the dishonest, bogus, vexatious complaint -- BUT THERE WAS NOT! HELLO!! THAT CAME *MONTHS* LATER -- *DUH*!
Aigail Hart's review starts with her showing off that she has no clue about what she's investigating.
She wrote:
"To summarise, you believe that Brockwood school lied to Hampshire Constabulary"
That's a fact, not a belief. Months later when Hampshire police, upon push back frm me, finally went to ask for evidence, the answer of Brockwood was, NIL, NOTHING, ZILCH!! They could not provide a grain of evidence to support their bogus, vexatious lie to the Hampshire police.
"and that they failed their duty by not asking to see evidence that they had."
"they" -- "they" -- using two "they" in one sentence, if it's pointing to two different entities, is very poor use of English grammar!! So UK Police can't even get its grammar right.
The police failed its duty. That's a fact, no matter how you try to cover that up.
"There are some points in your application that I am unable to consider, for reasons I will give in paragraph 48 ‘Matters we cannot consider’."
Let's look at Paragraph 48:
OMG -- I just read Paragraph 48 -- and it was just a copy/paste -- so Ms. Hart just copied/pasted stuff apparently, that are TOTALLY irrelevant to this case.
So we can ignore Paragraph 48 because it is WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to this case. Maybe a copy/paste leftover from another case LOL :-)
So Abigail Hart's sentence: "There are some points in your application that I am unable to consider" was a lie because there's nothing in Paragraph 48 that refers to anything in my complaint!! What a sloppy copy/paste job by the UK Police Misconduct office!!
What a waste of time.
After reading the next line, a most ridiculous, stupid, self-serving, self-cover-up attempt by UK police to exonerate itself, I decided to press the delete key and send Abigail Hart's letter into the trash can where it belongs. It's a piece of trash that should not consume any storage on my computer. It's a sad case of UK Police wasting taxpayer money to type up pure rubbish, in order to exonerate itself LMAO. I can only laugh out lout. I feel like I'm watching a play in a kindergarten.
I can respond point by point to the ensuing rubbish, but the facts of the case remain absolutely crystal clear and there's no question in my my mind that Hampshire Police acted utterly inappropriately, unprofessionally, stupidly, arrogantly, dogmatically, and not based on facts but based on fictions.
KFT/Brockwood went in, fooled the police to believe they had issued a non-contact notice (since we were investigating KFT/Brockwood as part of the Charity Commission process, and they were nervous because of their own gross misconduct so they decided to file a bogus police report). And the Hampshire police was so arrogant and stupid, to believe Brockwood/KFT lies, and issued a stupid, vulgar warning letter referring to laws that were 100% INAPPLICABLE, IRRELEVANT, ARBITRARY.
After we pushed back, the police asked for the evidence from Brockwood. Brockwood FAILED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE, THEREFORE THAT PROVES THEY LIED TO THE POLICE.
All the police had to to is to acknowledge their mistake and apologize to us but instead, they got engaged in a cunning, disgusting game of twisting facts, mixing timelines, to cover up for their mistakes and exonerate themselves.
SHAME ON HAMPSHIRE POLICE, AND UK POLICE MISCONDUCT ORGANIZATION.
~~~~~~~
AN EARLIER MESSAGE I SENT HER:
Dear Ms. Hart
Good talking with you.
Key points:
Brockwood lied to Hampshire police. Police fell for their lie. Police failed its duty by NOT asking to see evidence that they had asked me not to contact them and evidence that any of my emails were abusive and unlawful -- yet police wrote me a blistering letter falsely accusing me of stalking and harassment and giving me a warning, etc. which made me numb.
When I challenged them to show me evidence, the officer went missing in action. A lady took over. Months later she finally went to Brockwood saying where is the evidence, and they failed to provide the evidence. Which shows they were lying.
Brockwood did the same thing to Swiss police. Swiss police believed them, sent me an inappropriate letter, but later when they realized their mistake,they apologized to me.
Hampshire police instead tried to twist and turn the matter which was horrific. They intentionally mixed up the timelines and referred to many months after the complaint was made, when their lawyer responded to our lawyer, saying they didn't want to be contacted. Prior to that, and in particular, at the time the bogus complaint was made, it was never any such notice of non-contact given. And there was no evidence of any abusive contact. Our contact with them purely due to the investigation we were doing, cording to Charity Commission rules.
So the big mistake of the Hamshire police was not to ask for evidence before they contact a member of Public and write an arrogant bullying improper threatening scorning email. That's what they doing corrupt dictatorships. They don't have people like you look into it, so I hope you were able to identify the facts and realize the mistake that the Hamshire police made and acknowledge it.
It's Police academy, 101: you need to look for evidence. Can't just believe anything that anybody says who walks into the station. On the date of the complaint, there were absolutely no evidence of any desire for non-communication. There was absolutely no evidence of any effusive, harassing, stalking communication.
So the police act was bullying.
The second mistake they made was to try to cover up instead of acknowledging their mistake.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Because people before you have really turned and twisted the facts in a very cunning manner, in order to avoid the truth.
Best Regards
R. Ganjavi
All my contacts at the pathetic UK Police are copied:
Abigail Hart
Ben Snuggs
Bruce Trusler
James Cropper
Kerry Croutear
Lucy Hutson
michael.minnock
Donna Jones
Sam de Reya
Scott Chilton
Susan Adcock
abigail.hart@policeconduct.gov.uk
Ben.Snuggs@hampshire.police.uk
bruce.trusler@hampshire.police.uk
CaseworkOPCC@hampshire.police.uk
chief.constable@hampshire.police.uk
enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
james.cropper@policeconduct.gov.uk
kerry.croutear@hampshire.police.uk
Lucy.Hutson@hampshire.police.uk
michael.minnock@hampshire.police.uk
northcasework@policeconduct.gov.uk
opcc@hampshire.police.uk
professional.standards@hampshire.police.uk
PublicComplaintsMB@hampshire.police.uk
Sam.dereya@hampshire.police.uk
Scott.Chilton@hampshire.police.uk
susan.adcock@hampshire.police.uk
winchester.rural.police@hampshire.police.uk
PS --
Abigail Hart's statement that William Andrews' original email to me having been proper, is an endorsement of gross misconduct, i.e., to send an email, falsely accusing a person of having sent emails that violate the law (while in reality there is absolutely no proof of that and the police had never seen any proof of any unlawful emails. The emails that were sent were as part of our team's investigation of the Krishnamurti Foundation Trust (KFT) and its Brockwood Park School, in line with the UK Charity Commission guidelines that require contact with a charity prior to filing of a complaint with the Charity Commission -- and such contact requires inquiry into truth of matters of concern for the public, which were exactly the aim of the emails that were sent -- and NONE Of the emails were unlawful.
But police still bought the lies of KFT/Brockwood, and did NOT investigate the matter which would have been as simple as asking KFT/Brockwood to SUBSTANTIATE their (bogus) report with evidence.
Hampshire Policeman William Andrews sent the jerky, rude, inappropriate, bullying, threatening email to be based on FICTION and NOT FACTS. Abigail Hart endorses this behavior. Therefore, UK Police is DOOMED, caught in the Dark Ages, caught in its own net of delusion and self-serving, self-exonerating sphere. If that were not true, it would never try to cover up for Andrews' gross misconduct.
There is so much evidence to prove my point. These have been provided in detail before but it doesn't seem to matter because in that sphere of self-exonerating-at-any-cost, facts fall on deaf ears. The evidence include the fact that Policewoman Kerry Croutear admitted to me that when Raman Patel, Mina Masoumian, Nasser Shamim made the bogus report they stated that they had informed me of desire not to be contacted, while in reality that was NEVER done -- it was done MONTHS later when their lawyer (who quit on them after we asked to see facts to substantiate their bogus allegations) told our UK Charity lawyer that they didn't want to be contacted. Hello!! That was months LATER.
So Policewoman Croutear contacted KFT/Brockwood and asked for evidence to substantiate their claim they made when they made the complaint. Answer was ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING, NON-EXISTENT, NO EVIDENCE because KFT/Brockwood had LIED to the police.
The Shamim, Masoumian, Patel trio who obtained their power at the UK Charity by the clout of the multi-millionaire Friedrich Grohe, made the same bogus report to Swiss police, which also decided NOT to investigate it because of lack of evidence - but they were initially fooled by the trio from KFT/Brockwood too, and sent a similar letter as Hampshire Police did, but they realized their mistake and apologized, but UK Police couldn't get itself to admit to its mistake and apologize, so instead it engaged into spinning of facts, fabricating falsehoods as result of mixing facts, and the rest of the tragedy we're looking at -- the cover up job has been a bigger misconduct by UK police and its so-called regulators, than the original misconduct.
Gross Misconduct By Hampshire Police
Dear Sirs and Madam
Here's the case history of gross misconduct by Hampshire Police which your department has spun like they do in corrupt dictatorships where facts don't matter -- in order to exonerate itself. Your department never had the character to admit to its fault, it was too arrogant and it delusively thought it can get away by spinning and cluttering the facts. Such a shame!
I hope as new management you learn something from these past mistakes and grow.
Here's the background, painful story of Hampshire police misconduct and lack of regard for truth: https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/uk-police-misconduct-kft-misconduct
Regards
R. Ganjavi
To:
Tom Whiting
Kathie Cashell
Liz Booth
Amanda Rowe
Emily Barry
Catherine Bates
Graham Beesley
Derrick Campbell
David Ford
Sarah Green
Steve Noonan
Melanie Palmer
Julia Mulligan
Christine Elliott
Catherine Jervis
Bill Matthews
Rommel Moseley
Scarlett Baxter
Tom.Whiting@policeconduct.gov.uk
Kathie.Cashell@policeconduct.gov.uk
Liz.Booth@policeconduct.gov.uk
Amanda.Rowe@policeconduct.gov.uk
Emily.Barry@policeconduct.gov.uk
Catherine.Bates@policeconduct.gov.uk
Graham.Beesley@policeconduct.gov.uk
Derrick.Campbell@policeconduct.gov.uk
David.Ford@policeconduct.gov.uk
Sarah.Green@policeconduct.gov.uk
Steve.Noonan@policeconduct.gov.uk
Melanie.Palmer@policeconduct.gov.uk
Julia.Mulligan@policeconduct.gov.uk
Christine.Elliott@policeconduct.gov.uk
Catherine.Jervis@policeconduct.gov.uk
Rommel.Moseley@policeconduct.gov.uk
HumanResources@policeconduct.gov.uk
scarlett.baxter@policeconduct.gov.uk
IOPC is Pathetic!
Dear Sirs and Madams
Here's the case history of gross misconduct by Hampshire Police which it spun like they do in corrupt dictatorships where facts don't matter -- in order to exonerate itself. They never had the character to admit to its fault, it was too arrogant and it delusively thought it can get away by spinning and cluttering the facts. Such a shame!
Your unit's Abigail Hart effectively endorsed the gross misconduct !! Such a shame!
Here's the background, painful story of Hampshire police misconduct and lack of regard for truth, and IOPC's tragic comedy, joke of a "review". I suppose it could be your modus operandi: https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/uk-police-misconduct-kft-misconduct
Regards
Reza Ganjavi
---
[Then forwarded the response to IOPC to its management:
"See below for response to IOPC's pathetic existence."
:)
To: Abigail Hart
Copy: IOPC Management, Hampshire Police Management, Ms. Suella Braverman (Home Secretary of the United Kingdom [suella.braverman.mp@parliament.uk])
Ms. Hart,
Regarding your message of 9 October 2023, you have effectively endorsed gross misconduct by UK Police. You have endorsed a police officer sending a bullying threatening message to a member of public with absolutely no factual grounds, without having even bothered to ask the party who made a bogus complaint to show evidence to substantiate their case -- which is equivalent to believing a drunk who walks into a police station and says something.
The police was fooled by the deceptive bad-faith, vexatious report, but never had the courage nor the character to admit to its fault, so instead it got engaged in spinning the facts, mixing the timelines to fabricate a self-exonerating scenario, but miserably failed at it since you cannot stand outside in the sunlight and say it's night, no matter who you are, how much money you have, what's your status is in the society. Hampshire police engaged in the worst gross misconduct of cover up. That's worse than the original misconduct of bullying a member of public without factual basis.
And IOPC proved to be utterly useless and apparently so unintelligent to fall for the coverup fiction fabricated by Hampshire police, or exonerates the police as modus operandi.
Regardless, I am disgusted.
For the attention of Ms. Braverman, here's the case history of Hampshire Police Misconduct, which it tried to cover up, and your useless IOPC also engaged in covering up for: https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/uk-police-misconduct-kft-misconduct\
Regards
R. Ganjavi
On 10/9/23 12:39 PM, Abigail Hart wrote:
> Dear Mr Reza Ganjavi
>
> I acknowledge receipt of your emails dated 06, 08 and 09 October 2023.
blah blah...
To: Sue Morrow-Jones, Quality & Service Improvement Officer (Service Improvements), Independent Office for Police Conduct
Copy: IOPC and Hampshire Police Management
Thank you for the message and confirmation that your investigator has been referred for disciplinary review. You should take a message loud and clear to your management, and to Hampshire Police: Police Misconduct is Unacceptable, at any level and degree, no matter how much they can get away with it by trying to twist the facts, mix up the timelines, and fabricate a fake plot to cover up for themselves. What happened to me should not happen to anyone.
There are three key lessons for Hampshire Police and I hope your management will include that in their communications with the entire UK police force:
1) Do NOT believe allegations made against third parties when someone walks into the police office. It's likely, as it was in the case of KFT/Brockwood Park, that they're lying and wanting to abuse the police to act like their SLAPP lawsuit, but funded by taxpayers (and sadly, KFT/Brockwood are tax-exempt so it doesn't even cost them tax money to file a bogus report. Of course it's morally wrong to lie to anyone, and even worse, to the police, but now you see that it does happen, and your police officers like Will Andrews cannot accept what he's told sheepishly.
Perhaps it is taught in the UK police academies that the pulleys should ask to see some evidence before acting on some thing. KFT/Brockwood told the police they had sent a "do not contact" note but they were lying. The police confirmed that none of the emails that they brought in where unlawful, but the police believed them, that they didn't want to be contacted, but they were contacted regardless, therefore, they purportedly had a case. But they never made that communication, until months later, as I explained in my a previous message, and the police knew that. I don't think Bruce Trusler was so incompetent to not understand the simple sequence of events concepts.
When Kerry Croutear finally went back to ask for the evidence that Will Andrews and herself had failed to ask for on day one, she came back to me saying there was no evidence provided. Zilch. Just more dishonest hot air.
2) Do NOT try to bully members of public by falsely accusing them of having acted unlawfully -- this is exactly what Will Andrews did by his pathetic, rude, uncalled for, preposterous email to me.
3) Apologize, learn, when you screw up, otherwise you waste the public's time, and your time, because there are some people like me "who don't take shit from nobody!" and are not bully-able.
As for IOPC, I view it as a hopeless organization that's just there to exonerate the police and give a pretense that there's accountability. Abigail Hart thinking that Will Andrews's preposterous email to me was proper, testifies to that, in my opinion.
I do have some indication that my report has been read by police management. I sure hope they will try to learn something about police misconduct, about respecting public rights, about importance of evidence and truth, and about importance of having the integrity to admit to your mistake instead of trying to cover it up, no matter who the person is that you've wronged.
I feel satisfied from having shaken up the status quo that was so wicked in trying to cover up for its obvious misconduct. I hope they've learned something in the process, and next time they'll think twice before trying to bully members of public, based on a total lie, and before they try to cover up for their mistakes thinking they can get away by using irrational, illogical arguments -- that was Dark Ages.
While it's absolutely not an excuse, but this whole situation happened because of Krishnamurti Foundation Trust (KFT) / Brockwood Park School's dishonest, frivolous, bad-faith, bogus report. Krishnamurti himself talked extensively about the importance of truth, and here we have leaders of his organization lying to even mislead the police! Police initially falling for their lie and sending a bullying message was the police misconduct. Trying to cover it up by using fiction that collided with facts, was a bigger police misconduct.
Case Closed!
Distribution:
Amanda.Rowe@policeconduct.gov.uk
Ben.Snuggs@hampshire.police.uk
CaseworkOPCC@hampshire.police.uk
Catherine.Bates@policeconduct.gov.uk
Catherine.Jervis@policeconduct.gov.uk
Christine.Elliott@policeconduct.gov.uk
David.Ford@policeconduct.gov.uk
Derrick.Campbell@policeconduct.gov.uk
Emily.Barry@policeconduct.gov.uk
Graham.Beesley@policeconduct.gov.uk
HumanResources@policeconduct.gov.uk
Julia.Mulligan@policeconduct.gov.uk
Kathie.Cashell@policeconduct.gov.uk
Liz.Booth@policeconduct.gov.uk
Lucy.Hutson@hampshire.police.uk
Melanie.Palmer@policeconduct.gov.uk
PublicComplaintsMB@hampshire.police.uk
Rommel.Moseley@policeconduct.gov.uk
Sam.dereya@hampshire.police.uk
Sarah.Green@policeconduct.gov.uk
Scott.Chilton@hampshire.police.uk
Steve.Noonan@policeconduct.gov.uk
Tom.Whiting@policeconduct.gov.uk
abigail.hart@policeconduct.gov.uk
bruce.trusler@hampshire.police.uk
chief.constable@hampshire.police.uk
enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
james.cropper@policeconduct.gov.uk
kerry.croutear@hampshire.police.uk
michael.minnock@hampshire.police.uk
northcasework@policeconduct.gov.uk
opcc@hampshire.police.uk
professional.standards@hampshire.police.uk
scarlett.baxter@policeconduct.gov.uk
suella.braverman.mp@parliament.uk
susan.adcock@hampshire.police.uk
winchester.rural.police@hampshire.police.uk
*** THE END ***