Corrupt British Officials abused Interpol to try to arrest Grandma B’s Carer

In December 2010, the Local Government Ombudsman reported on his investigation into the Abuse of Grandma B, whom corrupt social workers, council officials, local councillors and police officers are attempting to defraud.

His report described the previous safeguarding investigation into the Abuse of Grandma B undertaken by the very officials abusing her as “irregular” because those officials had withheld all evidence of abuse to the safeguarding investigation they were conducting to protect themselves from prosecution. He requested that the safeguarding investigation be reopened “urgently”. Three days later, North Yorkshire Police and the City of York Council set in motion an attempt to have Grandma B’s carer arrested for “kidnapping” her. This attempt to silence the leading witness in a major corruption case went from York CID to Special Branch, SOCA, New Scotland Yard and Interpol, before arriving at the local police station in Grandma B’s place of refuge, where it was quickly established to be unfounded and false.

Since then, the British police officers involved in this criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice have been evading taking responsibility for their actions.

The thread of e-mails below between the fraud investigator working on this case and SOCA officers clearly demonstrates the false nature of the allegations and the duplicity of officers from an agency that is supposed to be combating serious organised crime and not helping abuse little, old ladies on a wheelchair to be the victim of serious, organised crime.

How safe are British citizens from foreign terrorists, when all SOCA is doing is breaking the law to help a gang of serious criminals break the law abroad?

Here is the thread of e-mails:

—-Original Message—–
From: Fraud Invdestigator
Sent: 27 July 2011 09:33
To: Public Complaints
Cc:; ‘Peter Hofschröer’; ‘Huw Daniel’; ‘IPT’
Subject: OPERATION WEETING/ELVEDEN Hofschroer Case(Crime Number 12110014573) Hofschroer Case (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011)
Dear Sirs,

Further to the various pieces of correspondence that have passed between myself and Mr Phillips, I have continued my investigation into the request that SOCA facilitated from North Yorkshire Police concerning Mr Peter Hofschroer.

Briefly, it is alleged that Mr Peter Hofschroer and his mother Barbara are the victims of a criminal fraud that was facilitated by a corrupt police officer in the North Yorkshire Police and that other officers in the North Yorkshire Police are protecting him from arrest.

I have established:

1.  That the request to arrest Peter Hofschroer was not initiated by a Police Officer, which is contrary to North Yorkshire Police (NYP) and Home Office policy.

2.  Contrary to what officers of SOCA have claimed, the IPCC have confirmed that the request to arrest Mr Peter Hofschroer was initiated by a civilian member of NYP in force headquarters Mr Steve Read, who has no responsibility for investigating welfare issues or criminal offences.

3.  That Detective Superintendent Galloway did not follow force or SOCA procedure for initiating an Interpol enquiry.

4.  Contrary to what officers of SOCA have claimed, the Austrian Police have confirmed that their investigation was into criminal offences not welfare issues.  Under the Austrian system the Police are strictly prohibited from involvement in welfare issues, which must be investigated by their Social Services:

5.  The Austrian Police specifically confirm that the allegation made by Mr Read that Peter Hofschroer was neglecting Barbara Hofschroer was false:

“1. Barbara Jeannette HOFSCHRÖER is in good health and is very well cared for by her son Peter HOFSCHRÖER.

2. Barbara Jeannette HOFSCHRÖER lives with her son Peter in a house no. 131 in 8783 Gaishorn am See. The house is kept very well. Peter HOFSCHRÖER has taken trouble to adapt the house to suit his disabled mother’s needs (toilets with hand-rails, etc.) and at his mother’s request built a beautiful conservatory with plants. She is very well looked after and has had her bedroom redecorated to her wishes (pictures, etc).

3. Barbara Jeannette HOFSCHRÖER says she wishes to return to the UK. However, at present this is not possible because of the behaviour of the authorities there. She does want to return there with her son Peter, who cares for and looks after her very well.

Regarding the health and welfare of Barbara HOFSCHRÖER, the investigating officer made enquiries with the district doctor, Dr Walter Gsöllpointer in Gaishorn am See.  Dr Gsöllpointer looks after Mrs HOFSCHRÖER as her GP and states that, taking into account her disability, is in very good physical condition for her age. He does not have the impression that she is unhappy or abused or is being held against her will. She appears to be very well looked after and her son Peter HOFSCHRÖER takes very good care of her. He brings her to his surgery regularly and when necessary.

Peter HOFSCHRÖER makes every effort to get his mother into company and has many friends in Gaishorn am See.

His mother can often be seen being taken out on her wheelchair in the village by her son.”

6.  The Austrian Police specifically confirm that the allegations made jointly by Mr Read and Robert Hofschroer that Peter Hofschroer was preventing Barbara Hofschroer from contacting members of her family and was being emotionally abused were false:

“4. Regarding contact to her son Robert she stated to the investigating officer that she had recently written to him and showed the officer the draft of the letter in her writing pad. Her son Peter is not preventing contact to her son Robert.”

5. She knows that Peter HOFSCHRÖER has made a complaint about the behaviour of the [British] police and, as such, has some problems. She is certainly not being abused emotionally and / or psychologically and is not being prevented from contacting her relations in the UK.”

7.  The Austrian Police specifically confirm that the allegations made by Mr Read that Peter Hofschroer had kidnapped Barbara Hofschroer and was holding her against her will in his house in Austria are false:

“The investigation carried out by Abteilungsinspektor Günter Haberl gave no indications whatsoever that Barbara HOFSCHRÖER was isolated from her family and being held against her wishes.”

8.  An enquiry of this nature concerning allegations of a serious crime SOCA would automatically put Peter Hofschroer and his associates on the GCHQ watch list so that his e mails and telephone calls would be monitored.  However, this was completely unauthorised given the fact that the Interpol request was initiated by a civilian at force Headquarters with no responsibility for criminal investigations or welfare issues, and Superintendent Galloway did not follow force procedure.

Mr Read has responsibility for investigating complaints only.  It is alleged that he requested the arrest of Peter Hofschroer to protect Inspector Moreton, who is alleged to be a corrupt Police Officer that has assisted Robert Hofschreor in a 500,000 Euro International Criminal fraud against members of Robert Hofschroer’s family, by preventing any more complaints about him.  Mr Read has previously accused me falsely of threatening Police Officers in e mails.

It is further alleged that the complaint against Peter Hofschroer was made to prevent him from giving evidence in Austria in a civil court case, in which he is trying to obtain the return of his home valued at 200,000 Euros from Robert Hofschroer’s children.

I am concerned that the Interpol request was made knowing that Peter Hofschroer would be the subject of GCHQ monitoring, to obtain intercepts of Peter Hofschröer’s communications with his lawyer concerning the court case in Austria, so that they could be provided to Robert Hofschroer to assist his family in retaining control of property in Austria valued at about 200,000 Euros.  This is a very similar allegation to those being investigated by Operation WEETING/ELVEDEN into allegations that corrupt Police officers have provided information to persons not authorised to receive it.

Accordingly I am making a formal complaint about the way this enquiry was handled and would like you to initiate an internal investigation into the way the request was made and also the response to my correspondence received from officers of SOCA, which was inaccurate and misleading.

Yours Sincerely,


From: []
Sent: vendredi 29 juillet 2011 14:48
To: Fraud Investigator
Subject: FW: OPERATION WEETING/ELVEDEN Hofschroer Case(Crime Number 12110014573) Hofschroer Case (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011)

Dear Mr Hicks,

Firstly please allow me to introduce myself as I am the Head of the Conduct Unit for SOCA and this Unit is responsible for dealing with public complaints in respect of this agency only. I have been passed your email below as you have indicated you wish to complain about officers from SOCA relating to a previous complaint investigation in respect of Peter Hofschroer.  You indicate you are dissatisfied with the outcome of that investigation and claim you have been misled. You should refer this matter by way of appeal to the IPCC.  I attach an electronic copy of the relevant appeal form to enable you to submit your appeal.

I have reviewed the correspondence and actions in relation to this matter and have taken into account the issues raised in your email below.  The issues which relate to North Yorkshire Police(NYP), GCHQ, Interpol and the Austrian Police are outside of my remit and therefore I will not comment on those matters.

With regards to the issues raised in respect of SOCA’s role in the originating issue, which was to facilitate a message from NYP to the Austrian Police via the Interpol network as SOCA are the UK’s point of contact through which such messages and requests are channelled.  The content of the these communications are the responsibility of the originators and not SOCA.  This agency did not instigate any action but undertook the function as required and took no other part.  I am satisfied SOCA acted correctly on this issue.

Moving to your other point which you believe you received inaccurate and misleading information. I have examined the previous correspondence and cannot find any communication which is inaccurate or misleading.  Officers from my office have endeavoured to explain the process how such messages are passed between different jurisdictions and what SOCA’s role is within it and I do not find their correspondence either inaccurate or misleading.

Yours sincerely,

Frank Sole  SG1
Head of Conduct Unit
HR Corporate Services
Telephone: 02072382590
Mobile: 07768 266 468            07768 266 468


——– Original Message ——–
RE: OPERATION WEETING/ELVEDEN Hofschroer Case(Crime Number 12110014573) Hofschroer Case (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011)
Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:49:46 +0200
Fraud Investigator

, “‘IPT'” , “‘PHILLIPS, Dave – CCD'” , “‘Rebecca Reed'” , “‘Huw Daniel'” ,

Dear Mr Sole,

Thank you for your e mail of the 29th of July.  I am sorry to have neglected it for so long, but I am now in a position to respond.

As you are aware, it is alleged that Mr Robert Hofschroer and members of his family have tried to defraud Mrs Barbara Hofschroer of her home and sell it and that they have been assisted in this crime by a Police Inspector based at Fulford Road Police Station.  It is further alleged that other Police Officers based at that station and in North Yorkshire Police (NYP) Force Headquarters have tried to protect the Inspector and Robert Hofschroer from arrest.

I wish to again bring your attention to the results of my investigation into the request to SOCA to have Peter Hofschroer arrested for kidnapping by NYP which has established that:

1.      Proper procedures were not followed by NYP, the IPCC have now confirmed that the Interpol arrest request was not made by a Police Officer at all, but by Mr Steve Read who is a civilian working in the complaints investigation department of North Yorkshire Police, who has no authority to conduct criminal or welfare investigations, has no police powers of arrest and certainly had no authority to initiate an Interpol enquiry.

2.      NYP alleged “Peter Hofschroer has from January 2009 prevented Robert from having contact with his mother.” The Austrian State Police investigation confirmed that this was a lie and that Mrs Hofschroer had contact with Robert Hofschroer and no impediment had been placed in the way of her family contacting her.  It is however the case that since the death of her husband in January 2009 that Robert Hofschroer and his family have ostracised her and cut off contact with her great grandson to cause her emotional distress.  This was at their choice not Peter Hofschröer’s.

3.      NYP alleged “Peter Hofschroer is subject of a Police investigation in UK as he has been sending abusive e-mails and making abusive phone calls to various members of North Yorkshire Police and York City Council”.  Assistant Chief Constable Sue Cross has confirmed that this is a lie and in fact there is no such investigation.  Peter Hofschreor was very concerned at these allegations which he denies and wishes to resolve them.  To this end I have contacted City of York Council and NYP on his behalf and asked them to confirm the crime number and investigating officer, so Peter can contact them and find out what this is all about and both organisations have failed to respond.  The Local Government Ombudsman has confirmed that his investigation has found no evidence of abusive e mails and that Peter Hofschrorr has had no contact by e mail with York Council since August 2009, which confirms my own findings.

4.     NYP alleged “Due to his behaviour and the fact that Barbara’s family in York have been unable to make contact with her, there are serious concerns for Barbara Hofschroer’s welfare. She is 81 years old and it is not known whether she is being kept in Austria and incommunicado from her family against her will.”  The Austrian Police investigation found that this was a lie and that in fact Robert Hofschroer had made no attempt to visit or ring her.

5.     NYP asserted that “Her son Robert wishes to be in contact with her, and it is believed that she wishes to have contact with him. Is this the case? If so contact should be established as it is believed Peter is preventing any contact”.  Since the Interpol investigation, Robert Hofschroer has not made any attempt to telephone or visit his mother.

6.     NYP asked at the request of Robert Hofschroer that the Austrian authorities confirm if Mrs Hofschroer’s accommodation was suitable for her.  The Austrian Police confirmed that it was perfectly adapted with handrails for her.  In fact Robert Hofschroer’s son Martin had stayed in Peter Hofschroer’s home in Austria shortly after it had been converted for use by Mrs Hofschroer and was completely aware that the house was suitable for a person in a wheelchair, as was his father Robert.

7.     NYP went on to request that “Should the officers speaking to Barbara establish she is being kept in Austria incommunicado from her family, against her wishes, appropriate measures should be taken under local law”. Obviously this means that Peter Hofschroer should be arrested for falsely imprisoning his mother.  However, officers of SOCA denied that this was a criminal investigation into allegations of false imprisonment (see attached) and alleged it was a welfare visit!  Clearly this is a falsehood, in Austria welfare matters are handled by the social services, not by the Police and it is quite clear that this was an investigation into allegations of kidnapping.  It is alleged that the complaint against Peter Hofschroer was made to prevent him from giving evidence in Austria in a civil court case, in which he is trying to obtain the return of his home valued at 200,000 Euros from Robert Hofschroer’s children, by having him arrested.

8.     No one denies that Peter Hofschroer was put on the GCHQ watch list, ultimately at the request of a man who was the subject of allegations of criminal offences against Peter and Barbara Hofschroer and an unauthorised civilian at NYP Force Headquarters.

You are aware that there are allegations of police corruption in the case, it is quite clear –and undisputed- that there was no evidential basis at all for NYP making this request and that the originator lied to the police.  Yet it apparently causes you no concern at all that SOCA and Interpol have been used to assist Robert Hofschroer in a campaign of harassment and appropriate procedures were not followed by NYP.  In particular, SOCA officers appear to have covered for NYP officers and claimed in correspondence that this was a welfare visit with no implication of false imprisonment, when in fact it is clear that NYP initiated a kidnapping enquiry at the request of a man who is known to be engaged in a campaign of harassment against his mother and her carer, to fraudulently obtain property worth nearly 500,000 Euros from them.

I would like you to have the opportunity of considering these points and responding, or alternatively, of having your findings reviewed internally, before we go any further with this.  If you want to meet or discuss the case by telephone, please let me know.

Yours Sincerely,


So long as police officers are at large, it will not be safe for Grandma B to return to her own home and live there.

Will somebody please arrest the police?

Leave a comment

1 Comment

  1. GRANDMA B UPDATE 11 MARCH 13 | The MUSA CASE, MAURICE KIRK, NORMAN SCARTH, THE BAYLIS FAMILY, THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE – VICTIMS OF THE STATE…this site is being interfered with – pls check the archives on the right for relavent past article

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: