The Abuse of Grandma B – a sad story told by Peter Hofschröer

Grandma B is now 82 years old. She is wheelchair-bound and very frail. The past three years of her life have been horrendous. She lost her husband of 60 years, but that was the easy part. She has also been the victim of sustained and systematic abuse in which she has been defrauded of her house, subjected to threats and harassment because she will not hand over her life savings to her abusers, then unlawfully evicted from her house and stranded abroad, with her abusers trying, fortunately unsuccessfully, to fraudulently sell her house.

You may well ask who would do such an awful thing to a little, old lady in a wheelchair. Sadly, most abuse takes place within the family and this is very much the case here. The main abusers are Grandma B’s older son, his wife and her two adult grandchildren.

Grandma B’s younger son was working abroad when he noticed something was very wrong. He immediately rushed back home, where his worst fears were confirmed. While he was travelling, his 87 year-old father was admitted to hospital with a serious heart complaint caused by neglect. His mother too was seriously ill due to neglect. His older brother and his family lived just around the corner, but had done little to help Grandma B and her very sick husband.

A year before this, Grandma B and her husband had signed over their house to the older son and his family on the understanding they would care for them. Their younger son agreed to this, because he was living and working abroad and could not provide the level of care needed. Hardly was the ink on the agreement dry when the older son and his family started running Grandma B and her husband down, hoping they would pass on as soon as possible.

When, in April 2008, the younger son arrived in the parental home, he was horrified by what he saw. He dropped what he was doing, gave up his job and home and became the full-time carer for his parents. His father led a full and happy life in his last months. His mother’s physical health has improved dramatically since the younger son took over her care.

As soon as the younger son took over the care of his parents, the older son and his family started a campaign of harassment designed to drive him out of the parental home and to seize control of their finances. Matters reached such a level in September 2008, that the younger son reported the criminal offences to the police and the abuse to social services.

What followed from there can only be described as a nightmare. The police made several attempts to arrest the carer on the basis of false allegations, while social services fabricated allegations against him in an attempt to have his powers of attorney revoked and the care of his parents placed in the hands of their abusers.

A few days after the younger son made his complaint, the police arrived at the parental home to investigate a complaint he has “stolen” his parents’ money. They had no evidence to support this allegation made by the abusers, but refused to record a complaint of harassment by the abusers.

Social services blocked all attempts at getting the abuse investigated. Grandma B’s social worker made a false allegation of assault against her carer, an unfit, middle-aged man. Social services withdrew this allegation when they were shown evidence that the social worker was a black-belt in martial arts. His claim to have been overpowered and physically ejected from the parental home without injury looked a little ridiculous, to say the least.

On the morning Grandma B’s husband of 60 years died, the police unlawfully raided her house. They allowed her abusers to charge in, assault her and bawl insults at her over her husband’s still warm corpse. When her carer stood between her and her abusers to protect her, the police officers pushed him out of the way and threatened to arrest him.

In the following months, the abusers stalked Grandma B, attempted to break into her house and send her abusive letters. The police refused to uphold the law and arrest the criminals in question.

An independent investigation into Social Service’s handling of the case criticised them and required them to reopen the safeguarding investigation. Months later, they did, but the police and Social Services withheld all evidence of abuse.

Instead, they fabricated abuse allegations against the carer and applied to the Office of the Public Guardian to have his powers of attorney annulled. The Office of the Public Guardian established the allegations made by Social Services were false and rejected the application.

Grandma B then went on her wheelchair to a local council meeting to hand out a leaflet protesting about the way the police and social services were treating her. Her local ward councillors set police officers in stab-vests on to her, threatening to arrest her for distributing a “defamatory” leaflet. When her carer pointed out that defamation is a civil matter and not a police matter, the officers looked a little flummoxed, but still tried to prevent her from exercising her democratic right of peaceful protest. Grandma B is a veteran of the Second World War and stood her ground. When her carer called out to the police sergeant attending the meeting in front of the 30 or so members of the public present that she should arrest these officers for harassing a vulnerable person, they beat a hasty retreat. The sergeant refused to uphold the law.

Instead, two days later, the local police fabricated the first Harassment Warning against her carer.  A couple of weeks later, they fabricated a second warning and were clearly intending to fabricate a third, at which point the carer could have been arrested.

In the ensuing two years, the carer’s legal representatives both in Britain and abroad have made a couple of dozen requests for sight of the evidence to support these unsigned, undated harassment warnings which are not legally valid. The police have produced nothing other than excuses and have refused every opportunity to sign these warnings for fear of perjuring themselves. The police inspector that issued the warnings took “early retirement” when challenged by the carer’s solicitor to produce the evidence.

Exhausted by this constant harassment, Grandma B went abroad on holiday for Christmas 2009. The police tipped off her abusers she was away from home, who then forced entry, changed the locks and unlawfully evicted her. After stealing her valuables in full view of the police, they tried to fraudulently sell her house. Fortunately, Grandma B’s solicitor prevented them from doing so.

However, her abusers and their friends in the police and local authority then fabricated a kidnapping allegation against her carer. This request to arrest the carer went from the local CID to Special Branch, to SOCA, to New Scotland Yard, to Interpol London, Interpol in the country in question, then to the national police headquarters and provincial police headquarters before landing on the desk of a local police officer in a remote Alpine village.

The expectation here was obvious: the local country bumpkin plod would be so impressed by the provenance of this request that he would summon up reinforcements before daring to attempt to tackle this known, hardened, serious international criminal.

It did not quite work out like that. Two weeks before this request arrived, the police officer and his good wife had been among the many guests at the local pub at Grandma B’s 82nd birthday party. He had been sceptical about the stories he had heard about official corruption in Britain, but now he was supposed to arrest the carer for kidnapping his mother, holding her against her will and incommunicado. He obviously knew these allegations were false, but being a professional, he carried out a proper investigation. His report made it clear that the British police had knowingly lied to Interpol to help corrupt officers defraud a little, old lady on a wheelchair.

This attempt by corrupt British police to abuse honest local police officers to carry out criminal acts on their behalf is now under investigation by the local foreign ministry.

Had the carer not been so lucky, then the chances are he would have been remanded in custody pending extradition, while Grandma B would have been returned to Britain and to the tender mercies of social services. Her assets would then have been plundered and divided up between the gang of criminals running this racket.

There have now been five independent reviews of this case. All have called for it to be reopened. Both the police and local authority have ignored these requests.

So what is going on here and who is involved? The main abuser is employed by local social services. He, his wife and daughter have provided support services to the local police. They all know who the isolated old people in their area with assets are. It would seem they are systematically targeting defenceless old people and seizing control of their assets before bundling them off into a council home, then selling their assets. The cash then gets laundered through a dodgy private care company as “care fees” and the police officers, social workers, council officials and local politicians involved then pocket the money. The perfect crime, as who is going to listen to a confused, old lady in a home, whose contact with the outside world they are controlling?

This is rampant corruption and serious, organised crime. Nobody in authority in North Yorkshire – including a certain senior police officer in the news at present – will respond to correspondence and deal with this case.

How many more victims are there?

Related Reading

Next Post
Leave a comment

83 Comments

  1. Tom Brown

     /  23/07/2011

    The first major scandal broke openly in Brighton in 1957 with headlines in the local press reporting the arrival of Scotland Yard detectives to investigate allegations of corruption in the Brighton Borough Police force. Three weeks later, Chief Constable John Ridge was arrested along with two officers of Brighton CID and two members of the public, and charged with a variety of corrupt practices. He was eventually acquitted (unlike his subordinates) but in a scathing statement the trial judge then demonstrated that he thought Ridge far from innocent. Without a change in the leadership of the force, he maintained, the judiciary would feel unable to believe evidence from Brighton police. The boroughs demanded that the powers of the Inspector of Constabulary be enlarged, and that his annual report be sent to the watch committee as well as the Home Secretary. This tactic was an implicit attempt to blame the Home Office for not spotting Ridge earlier. It was, though, also an acknowledgement that watch committees no longer possessed the specialist knowledge that, alone, would enable them to supervise ‘their’ local police forces on their own.

    The second scandal took place in Labour-controlled Nottingham in 1959 when, Chief Constable (and former Black and Tan member) Athelstan Popkess, launched an investigation of twenty Labour councillors. The Town Clerk successfully persuaded him that this was unreasonable, but it was succeeded by another enquiry, responding to groundless allegations that two Labour councillors and the Secretary of the District Labour Party had been bribed on a visit to East Germany. When details of the investigation, known only to the police, were leaked the day before the municipal elections, the Labour group asked for a report on the matter from Popkess. When he refused, they suspended him but Home Secretary Rab Butler immediately ordered them to reinstate him. The Town Clerk maintained that this power was the prerogative of the watch committee, but Butler threatened to withdraw the central government grant, even though the Home Office conceded that the force was not ‘inefficient’ — their only legal justification for a withdrawal. By now national Labour Party figures, worried that the events in Nottingham would damage their chances in the forthcoming local elections, persuaded the watch committee to back down.

    Other scandals also influenced the formation of the Royal Commission, notably the furore surrounding the cases of the ‘Thurso Boy’ John Waters, and the dispute between a Metropolitan policeman and the actor Brian Rix. Both of these fuelled an atmosphere of unease about the relationship between the police and the public, and both additionally threw into question the mechanisms whereby the police were accountable. Yet despite its mandate — to investigate ‘the constitution and function of local police authorities; the status and accountability of members of police forces, including chief officers of police; and the relationship of the police and the public and the means of ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with’ — the Commission skated over the question of the relationship with the public and concentrated on administrative structures. The Home Office agenda from the outset was clear – the Secretary of State should be made more responsible for policing outside London. Watch committees ought to be more like the county police authorities, and thus exercise far fewer powers.

    The Commission received evidence that the corrupt dropping of prosecutions was not confined to the borough forces: two county policemen expressed their belief that such a practice prevailed in their forces. Yet it did not recommend changes in prosecution procedure: instead it defined the problem as politicisation in the boroughs. In private correspondence with Commission members, Home Office officials deprecated the position of the boroughs, and instead drew their attention to the submission from the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Association (signed by, among others, Leslie Scarman and Margaret Thatcher), which recommended a professional and national force free from ‘political’ interference. Although the final report of the Royal Commission fudged the issue of what the powers of the watch committees were and ought to be, the Home Office pursued its agenda through the working party that considered the recommendations. By the 1960s the boroughs were finding it hard to articulate a convincing view of localism against the logic of ‘efficiency’, and if anything they were embarrassed at the extent of their powers: powers that most watch committees had not used for decades.

    In May 1963 Home Secretary Henry Brooke, Butler’s successor, put forward proposals to eliminate most of the powers of the watch committees, justifying this move with innuendoes about corruption. Brooke ‘could not fault the position in the counties and referred to stories that he frequently heard of instances of abuse of power by watch committees. When challenged by the representatives [of corporations] he said that he had not confirmed any such stories’. Unable to reconcile the national exposure of sordid local scandal with the demands of impersonal ‘modern’ efficiency, the cities were forced to lose the trappings of a local control that had been steadily leached away over the decades by an advancing professionalism. The new police forces followed the counties’ geographical borders, and the police authorities followed the county model: only half their members were elected, the rest were appointed; and the Chief Constable was accountable for executive decisions to the Home Secretary in practice, and nobody in theory. The Secretary to the Royal Commission, T.A. Critchley, retired to write a highly successful, though sometimes misleading, history of police in England, which perpetuated the Home Office view of reform as both necessary and inevitable.

    Reply
  2. Peter Hofschröer

     /  24/07/2011

    Here’s some more information on the above story:

    The Abuse of Grandma B

    Barbara Hofschröer, a retired teacher of handicapped children, is now 82 years old and wheelchair-bound. For the past three years, she has been the victim of sustained, systematic abuse in which she has been:

    questioned by armed police
    harassed by police officers
    threatened with arrest for harassing a police officer
    defrauded of her house
    unlawfully evicted from her house and stranded abroad by her older son and his family
    pressured into handing over her life savings to her abusers
    denied contact to her great-grandson
    stalked by her older son and his family
    assaulted by her older son
    bawled at over her husband’s dead body by her older son and his family
    burgled by the older son and his family
    threatened with prosecution for non-payment of Council Tax she did not owe

    Her abusers include:

    Her older son Robert Hofschröer, his wife Shirley and their two adult children Diane and Martin
    Officers of North Yorkshire Constabulary, including the Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell
    Officers of the City of York Council, including the Chief Executive Kersten England
    Senior York social workers, including the head of adult protection Mike Hodgkiss
    Cllr David Horton JP, the Lord Mayor of York
    Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing, whose portfolio includes adult social services
    Members of North Yorkshire Police Authority, including its chairman Jane Kenyon
    Officers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including Commissioner Nicholas Long

    Her main abuser Robert Hofschröer is employed by York Social Services and as such, his colleagues are refusing to take action against “one of their own”. His department provides support to North Yorkshire Police and it is alleged they are refusing to arrest him and his family for the serious criminal offences they have committed because of this.

    A professional fraud investigator has accumulated sufficient evidence to have Maxwell and his associates arrested for conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and harassment. The Police reacted to this by trying to arrest the investigator for an unspecified offence.

    So far, five independent investigations have questioned how the police and local authority have handled this case. Hundreds of thousands of tax-payers’ money has been wasted to protect a corrupt social worker and his associates.

    In December 2010, the Local Government Ombudsman called for the safeguarding investigation to be reopened. The Police and York Council refused to do so, but instead tried to get Interpol to arrest her carer, so he could not give evidence in court about this corruption.

    Nicholas Long, a Commissioner of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, has also called for the case to be reopened, but North Yorkshire Police has refused to do so.

    This is unprecedented in a case of abuse, so why are the authorities refusing to comply with the law here?

    It is alleged that officers of North Yorkshire Constabulary and the City of York Council are running a racket in which they are systemically targeting isolated old people and plundering their assets. They are desperate to “keep the lid” on this story.

    If you know of any similar cases, please let me know.

    Peter Hofschröer – Carer for Barbara Hofschröer

    Reply
  3. DKP

     /  24/07/2011

    Home Secretary in the Commons on monday 18th July –

    \”Mr Speaker, there is nothing more important than the public\’s trust in the police to do their work without fear or favour. So at moments like these it is natural that people should ask who polices the police,\” May said to the House.

    \”I have already asked Jane Furniss, the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, whether she has the power and the resources to get done the immediate work at hand. She has assured me that they do, but additional resources will be made available to the IPCC if they are needed.\”

    Dixon of Dock Green quoted on radio four just now-

    \”There is nothing worse on gods earth than a bent copper\”

    Reply
  4. Peter Hofschröer

     /  24/07/2011

    🙂

    Another hypocritical politician producing the right sound bites.

    Lord Maginnis put the file of this case on her desk over ONE YEAR ago. She has done nothing about it.

    Lord Maginnis had a meeting about this case with IPCC Commissioner Nicholas Long in March 2011. Long lied at the meeting, has lied since the meeting and has committed a number of criminal offences to cover up the police corruption in this case.

    So the IPCC has done nothing about senior police officers committing serious criminal offences against a defenceless old lady. All the IPCC has done is to commit further criminal offences. Who polices the people that police the police?

    It was be naive to expect anything but total dishonesty from those running a country as corrupt as Britain.

    Reply
    • John Kellas

       /  24/07/2011

      It really beggars belief that this kind of corruption is going on in those organisations in which we really need to be able to put our trust. These people should be brought before a court of law to answer for their illegal action!

      Reply
  5. SHARON WILSON

     /  24/07/2011

    I LIVE IN YORK A ND AM IN A SIMILAR SITUATION-IT IS FACT OF SERIOUS CORRUPTION-THE NYP-THE NYPA AND SOCIAL SERVICES.FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW-INDEED THe WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT-IM A VICTIM ALSO-DISABLED WITH ILL HEALTH-THREATENED WITH ARREST-ISSUED WITH A HARRASSMENT WARNING!.WE ALSO NOTE CHIEF CONSTABLE MAXWELL FAILED TO INVESTIGATED THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JAYNE BROWN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF NYYPCT WHEN SHE WAS WITH DONCASTER PCT-KERSTAN ENGLAND-JAYNE BROWN-JANE KENYON-ALL BUDDIES YOU SEE.SW

    Reply
  6. Peter Hofschröer

     /  26/07/2011

    This letter just arrived from Jo James, Disclosure Manager – Civil Disclosure and CRB Legal and Compliance Services Directorate of North Yorkshire Police. The fraud investigator working on the case of Grandma B asked for disclosure of the evidence behind the harassment allegations fabricated against her carer.

    More than twenty requests have been made for sight of the non-existent evidence behind this false allegation. This was her reply:

    ‘In line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, your request is refused as it has been deemed as a “vexatious request”’

    So after two years of trying to get sight of the non-existent evidence behind a false allegation, North Yorkshire Police still do not want to admit they have falsified allegations against the carer of an 82 year-old invalid to try to stop him “blowing the lid” on their criminal activities.

    Here is the letter in full:

    Freedom of Information Request

    I write in connection with your request for information dated 13 July 2011. I note you seek access to the following information:-

    1. Please can you provide a copy of the complaint signed by Mr Mark Bednarski. If you are unwilling to do this then please can you confirm that a complaint exists in the crime file.

    2. Please can you provide a copy of the statement signed by Mr Mark Bednarski. If you are unwilling to do this then please can you confirm that a complaint exists in the crime file.

    3. Please can you provide copies of the e mails mentioned in the harassment warning. Ms Terry’s determination below is contrary to law, you cannot deny Mr Hofschroer access to the e mails on the basis that it is personal information, when he is the person that is alleged to have written them. If you are unwilling to provide copies, please can you confirm the date and time they were sent and the e mail address they were sent to. If you are unwilling to provide this information, please can you confirm the e mails
    mentioned in the harassment warning physically exist in the crime file.

    4. Further to point 4 of the attached request I have now seen a copy of the leaflet which was provided by Superintendent Winward. Ms Terry’s determination below is contrary to law, you cannot deny Mr Hofschroer access to the leaflet on the basis that it is personal information when he is the person that is alleged to have written it. My own examination of this copy leads me to believe that the original is a forgery and I therefore require access to the original leaflet which is allegedly held in the crime file at Fulford Road Police Station. Please can you authorise me to inspect this document during my next visit to Fulford Road Police Station.

    5. Please can you provide a list of the evidence contained in the crime file.

    6. I note your response that (incredibly) there is no policy on who can issue a harassment warning or what evidence is required to support it.
    Please can you provide a copy of force policy on written communications with the public on headed paper.

    7. Please can you provide entries of the Police Notebook Entries of PC Homburg in respect of the harassment warning.

    8. Please can you confirm that PC Homburg is the officer that issued the harassment warning on headed paper, not Inspector Moreton.

    9. Mr Bednarski has separately given evidence to an enquiry by the local Government Ombudsman that leads me to believe that he took the leaflet to the Police. Please can you confirm that the leaflet was provided to the Police by Mr Bednarski.

    10. The leaflet alleges that Mr Bednarski made a false allegation of a criminal offence against Mr Hofschroer and had disciplinary action taken against him by his employer York Council. This is true and a statement of fact. Please can you confirm what statement about Mr Bednarski in the leaflet is deemed to be an act of harassment and why.

    11. Please can I have authority to examine the crime file during my next visit to Fulford Road Police Station.

    In respect of the request to the Austrian State Police to interview Peter Hofschroer concerning allegations of kidnapping and abusing his mother and to take appropriate action against him under Austrian law, made by North Yorkshire Police at the request of Robert Hofschroer, this has been the subject of a separate request by myself and your response is referenced 2839.10. I have now obtained the original request made by Detective Superintendent Galloway using Austrian Freedom of Information legislation, which Mr Empson denied in his response. This has prompted additional questions. In respect of the Interpol request:

    11. Why was this request sent to the Austrian State Police, not Austrian Social Services.

    12. The request to the Austrian State Police to take appropriate measures under Austrian law if the allegations of kidnapping and abusing his mother were found to be true, is very clearly a request to arrest Peter Hofschroer.
    Please can you confirm if there is a defined meaning to the form of words used in the Interpol request in force policy.

    13. Please can you confirm the name of the officer carrying out the investigation, thought to be Detective Inspector Ellis of North Yorkshire Police CID based at Fulford Road Police Station.

    14. Please can you confirm the name of the officer that authorised the request, thought to be Superintendent Lisa Winward, Officer Commanding North Yorkshire Police in York.

    15. Please can you confirm that Detective Superintendent Galloway, as well as being the Director of Intelligence for North Yorkshire Police and commanding the Force Intelligence Bureau is also the head of North Yorkshire Police Special Branch.

    16. Please can you confirm that in cases of kidnapping, North Yorkshire Police and/or the Serious and Organised Crime Agency policy is to request that the subject and his associates are placed on the GCHQ watch list and that their e mail and telephone traffic are monitored.

    17. Please can you confirm if the e mail and telephone calls of Peter Hofschroer and his associates were monitored by GCHQ at any time.

    18. Please can I see the signed complaint by Robert Hofschroer. If you will not provide this please can you confirm that one exists in the crime file.

    19. Please can I see the signed witness statement by Robert Hofschroer. If you will not provide this please can you confirm there is one in the crime file.

    20. Please can I see any Police Notebook Entries made during the course of the investigation into these allegations.

    21. Please can you provide a list of the evidence that was collected and is in the crime file.

    22. Please can you authorise me to review the crime file during my next visit to Fulford Road Police Station.

    In line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, your request is refused as it has been deemed as a “vexatious request”.

    Section 14(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

    Under this section of the Act, an authority is not obliged to deal with requests that are manifestly unreasonable or obsessive. The Information Commissioner has stated that a vexatious request is, or causes, a significant burden, has no serious purpose, causes disruption and annoyance and leads to harassment of the public authority.

    Accordingly, I have found that your request is vexatious on the grounds that the series of requests submitted by yourself has imposed a significant burden. In establishing that this is the case, a police force can look at evidence provided by internal departments. It is clear that in this case the subject matter is similar or relate to the same issues that form part of a long line of requests and correspondence with this unit and the Professional Standards Directorate over a period of time.

    Whilst the Freedom of Information Act is generally applicant blind, public authorities may take into account the identity and motive(s) of the applicant when considering S14. As such, in these cases, there is no requirement for a public authority to adhere to the ‘applicant blind’ principle.

    Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  14/08/2011

      I was issued with a harrassment warning by pc smith and pc hodge which was instigated by mike proctor deputy chief executive from york district-hospital whom in my opinion poses a grave danger to the public-deliberate acts of malice.a nasty man whom perverts the course of public justice-c onceals arrestable offences-sends horrible letters -signs documents known to be fraudulent misrepresentation-bullies the complainants-he was aware of me being denied insulin when the 895 officer(that never existed) ordered me off the premises.i will be pressing the ipcc for an independant police force to investigate..he was also a ware that york radiologists doctors deliberately and maliciously misreported my chest/jaw/ xrays and ecg s to withold treatment-no error of judgement but a premeditated criminal act-the motive a hatred towards complainants which is occurring across the country to many-midstaff ip of the iceberg-inaddition witholding medical records for 6 years!he also obstructed the nursing body to claim my file to be EXAMINED WHICH HAD BEEN SIGNED FOR RELEASE.HE IS NOW ITH SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL!AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND SHOULD BE SACKED-I WONDER IF SIR CARLISLE IS AWARE OF HIS CONDUCT???WITH YORK DISTRICT??MANY COMPLAINED -EVEN THE BBC WERE AT THE HOSPITAL ABOUT THE FAILING COMPLAINTS S YSTEM???THE HOSPITAL DOES COME UNDER NYYPCT DOES IT?.I WILL WAIT CYNTHIA BOWERS COMMENTS ON HIM CARE QUALITY COMMISSION-indeed a patient in the press said there should be a probe-the crimnals like to keep it in the family!!.what vetting procedures were there???weve come across many corrupt dishonest nhs managers!!!.bring them to justice!ask mike proctor why he allowed dr peter kennedy ex chief executive of the york trust to commit fraud and fail to act-and call in the police???

      Reply
  7. Tom Brown

     /  26/07/2011

    I wonder if Jo James can keep a straight face or is the breath down her back and neck bearable. Does she not realise that she comes under the Common Purpose heading of ‘Useful Idiot’

    Reply
  8. Peter Hofschröer

     /  26/07/2011

    The fraud investigator working on this case has just sent this e-mail to Chief Constable Graheame Maxwell of North Yorkshire Constabulary:

    Dear Chief Constable Maxwell,

    I acknowledge receipt of the attached e mail from your subordinate Ms James. I see with some sadness that as usual I have again been vilified as being “vexatious” and a troublemaker by your force.

    In response to this offensive personal allegation I would comment that Mrs Hofschroer suffered emotional and financial abuse from her son Robert and his children while they were caring for her, culminating in them trying to obtain control of her savings, seizing her home, throwing her property out, changing the locks and withholding a key from her thereby making her homeless and then trying to sell her home thus leaving her stranded in Austria, to fraudulently make a profit of about £200,000. They are currently involved in civil action in Austria to confirm their ownership of the home of Mrs Hofschroer’s son Peter who is also her full time carer, in which evidence from PC 1974 Homburg of Peter Hofschroer’s bad character has been introduced, based on a “harassment warning” which is in fact completely unsupported by evidence. This evidence will probably influence the case in Austria in their favour, leading to Peter losing his home and Mrs Hofschroer being made homeless in Austria as well. I would like to reiterate that I have taken up Mrs Hofschroer’s case because as a Christian I was gravely concerned for her welfare (she is disabled, confused, seriously ill, the victim of abuse by members of her family, homeless and destitute, with only her faithful son Peter to care for her), and because as a Chartered Accountant, it is completely clear to me that she is a classic victim of a fraud by abuse of position within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006, which was enacted precisely to prevent this type of situation occurring.

    While it is always easier to dismiss someone as a troublemaker rather than address a legitimate complaint, you may care to consider that as a result of the work by Mr Niven, Mr Crawford, Peter Hofschroer, Lord Maginnis and myself:

    · Mrs Hofschroer’s savings have been safeguarded

    · The sale of Mrs Hofschroer’s house and the destruction of all her personal possessions has been prevented.

    · Mrs Hofschroer’s home in York has been recovered and secured for her, thus protecting her precious personal possessions from removal and destruction by her son Robert and his children, and preparing it for her eventual return when she is able to travel.

    · Your CID officers have been assisted concerning the burglary that occurred at 74 Rosedale Avenue by providing them with additional new evidence and this has resulted in the case being re-opened.

    · Your CID officers have been assisted concerning arranging a meeting with Peter Hofschroer on his return to the UK.

    (I am continuing to assist your force on the above two matters)

    · The Local Government Ombudsman has been assisted in his enquiries into the joint Police and Council safeguarding investigation, which he has criticised as “irregular” and supported my demands for the entire case to be re-opened.

    · Commissioner Long of the IPCC has recently supported my calls for the case to be re-opened.

    · Lord Maginnis has written to the Home Secretary supporting my request for an independent enquiry into the case.

    · I have met with Superintendent Winward and briefed her on the case. During our meeting I tried to obtain an understanding by the Police that the treatment Mrs Hofschroer has received from Robert Hofschroer and his children was abuse and a crime within the meaning of force policy on protecting vulnerable adults and they needed to change their approach, in the hope of achieving consensus on a joint position and some form of reconciliation between the Police and the Hofschroer family. Sadly my personal approach has not had this effect and indeed appears to have completely remotivated your force to re-double its efforts to protect Inspector Moreton.

    I am therefore confident that any impartial and objective observer would reject your view that we are acting maliciously and accept that in fact we are acting constructively and responsibly as a group, to protect and safeguard a vulnerable frail old lady. I consider it is despicable of Ms James to sign her name to personally offensive statements that I and by implication Mr Niven, Mr Crawford, Lord Maginnis, Mr Daniel and Commissioner Mr Long are “vexatious” because we have taken up Mrs Hofschroer’s case. Further:

    · No one now denies that Mrs Hofschroer has been subjected to emotional and financial abuse by Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer.

    · No one now denies that the transfer of 74 Rosedale Avenue to Robert Diane and Martin Hofschroer and their subsequent attempt to sell it was criminal fraud within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006.

    · No one now denies that Inspector Moreton withheld evidence from the safeguarding conference which ensured that Robert Hofschroer would not be censured, then issued a “harassment warning” threatening to arrest Peter Hofschroer on his return to the UK thus deterring Barbara from returning to the UK and leaving 74 Rosedale Avenue empty, so Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer could enter it and sell it.

    · No one now denies that the “harassment warning is not supported by any admissible evidence at all.

    · No one will confirm if PC Homburg even knows anything about the unsigned undated letter issued in his name by Inspector Moreton.

    · Neither PC Homburg or any other officer in North Yorkshire Police will sign the “harassment warning”.

    · No one now denies that Inspector Moreton was a corrupt police officer that actively assisted Robert Hofschroer in his attempts to perpetrate a 500,000 Euro international criminal fraud on Mrs Hofschroer.

    · No one denies the findings of the Austrian State Police that the request to interview and arrest Peter Hofschroer for kidnapping and abusing his mother made jointly by Mr Steve Read of your force and Mr Robert Hofschroer was completely without any evidential foundation.

    I am afraid that under these circumstances a policy of refusing to comment and simply dismissing all attempts to resolve this as vexatious made by troublemakers is simply untenable, and serves only to support my case that there has been misconduct by police officers that your force is trying to conceal. Put simply, I am afraid there is just not enough chalk in the whitewash.

    In particular, I would bring your attention to the attached e mail from Inspector Moreton of your force to Peter Hofschroer in which he extended an invitation to attend at Fulford Road Police Station to discuss the alleged e mails “If you wish to discuss the matter in person please do not hesitate to contact me” contained in the harassment warning. Perhaps you can explain to me why having taken up this invitation on behalf of Peter Hofschroer to attend at Fulford Road Police Station to try and resolve this matter constructively and reasonably, having treated Superintendent Winward with scrupulous courtesy and having assisted her by passing on fresh evidence which has resulted in an unsolved burglary investigation being re-opened, North Yorkshire Police can refuse to show me or comment on the e mails and leaflet that they invited me into the police station to discuss and can then go on to describe me as acting vexatiously because I have asked for sight of the documents that your force has alleged that Peter Hofschroer has written and has invited me to Fulford Road Police Station to see.

    Perhaps you can also explain why your Head of the North Yorkshire Police Legal and Compliance Department Mr Dennis has written to Mr Peter Hofschroer’s solicitor in Austria denying that the attached e mail from Inspector Moreton which contains the invitation exists.

    Please can you also explain why Mr Steve Read who is a civilian employee of your force with no police powers of arrest or mandate to conduct criminal investigations was allowed to initiate a criminal investigation into Mr Peter Hofschroer on behalf of Robert Hofschroer, which transpired to be unsupported by any evidence and contravened force policy, which prohibits civilians from initiating international enquiries and restricts this power only to serving police officers.

    Finally, please can I have a response to my e mails to you of the 15th of June 2011, 22nd of June 2011, 15th of July 2011 and 22nd of July 2011, and also to my e mails of the 20th of July 2011 to Deputy Chief Constable Sue Cross, preferably one that responds substantively to the grave allegations of misconduct in the Hofschroer case, instead of evading the situation by just dismissing the concerns of myself, Mr Niven, Lord Maginnis, Mr Crawford, the Local Government Ombudsman and Mr Long with a blanket allegation of being “vexatious”.

    I look forward to your response.

    Reply
  9. Peter Hofschröer

     /  29/07/2011

    I have just e-mailed the desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London to update her on developments in the case and to ask the Foreign Secretary to intevene in this case. My comments included,

    “You are also aware that for the past two years now, I have had a professional fraud investigator working on this case. He has accumulated sufficient evidence to charge and arrest most chief officers of North Yorkshire Constabulary, senior police and Special Branch officers, officers of SOCA, officials of the IPCC, members of North Yorkshire Police Authority, the Chief Executive of the City of York Council, most of her senior management, the senior management of York Social Services, the Lord Mayor of York and a number of local politicians. Chief Constable Maxwell is refusing him access to a police station to sign the complaint forms and press charges.

    “You are also aware that these corrupt British officials abused office and attempted to have the Austrian police arrest me via Interpol on the basis of false allegations of kidnapping my mother.

    “This investigation of the Interpol affair as outlined below shows that it was entirely ILLEGAL and a serious ABUSE OF OFFICE.

    “That being the case, I would appreciate you asking the Foreign Secretary if he finds it objectionable that corrupt British officials should abuse honest officials in a friendly foreign country and attempt to get them to carry out criminal acts on their behalf.

    “If William Hague does find such behaviour repugnant, can you please let me know what he intends to do about it?”

    [End quote]

    If I get an answer, I’ll post it.

    Reply
  10. SHARON WILSON

     /  31/07/2011

    THE POLICE/AUTHORITIES ARE LIABLE FOR MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES INFLICTING THE CONDUCT ON MRS B IN THE EVENT OF A TRAGIC OUTCOME TO AN ELDERLY LADY.THIS ABUSE OF POWER FROM THE POLICE APPEARS WIDESPREAD.NORTHYORKSHIRE POLICE BEING ONE OF THE WORST. IT APPEARS CORRUPTION IS RIFE.IT IS NOTED KEEPING UP APPEARANCES IN THE MEDIA.IT IS TIME FOR THE SILENT TALKER-POLYGRAPH TESTING-VERY MUCH USED IN THE STATES.I REQUESTED THIS MYSELF WHICH I AM HAPPY TO UNDERGO .I REQUESTED ALL THOSE WHOM IVE ACCUSED TO DO THE SAME-NO RESPONSE-NOTHING TO HIDE -PLENTY TO HIDE.THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT WANT DANGEROUS CORRUPT PRACTICES BEING EXPOSED..TIME FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRISTS TO EXAMINE THE STATES OF MINDS AND MATERIAL OF DOCTORS /SOCIAL WORKERS/ NURSES/ECT WHOM ABUSE. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE PURSUED -WHICH INCLUDES THE GMC-LOCAL MEDICAL COMMITTEE-THE YORK TRUST AND PCT-NYPA-NYP. AND THE CORONER WHOM COVERS UP.MIDSTAFF DEATHS IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.PROFESSOR WOLFGANG STATES MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROTECT FROM WRONGDOING AND ABUSE AND UNLAWFUL KILLINGS IN THE NHS.THE SHIPMAN INQUIRY HASNT GONE FAR ENOUGH.

    Reply
  11. Frank L. Chalmers

     /  01/08/2011

    Apparently Grahame Maxwell is to be meeting with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary later this week in relation to the open post.
    http://www.gazetteherald.co.uk/news/9170503.Crisis_talks_over_senior_North_Yorkshire_Police_post/

    It might be prudent for someone to drop them a line, and let them know about this stuff.

    http://www.hmic.gov.uk/contact-us/

    Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  18/08/2011

      it is very serious that the Her Majesty’s inspectorate is neglecting his duty to protect society from corrupt officers and the evidence available and the inappropriate letters we all received.i note on the police web dcc madgwick was keen to ensure his officers welfare was considered at an accident and rightly so-BUT APPEARS NEVER TO CONSIDER THE WELFARE OF GRANDMA B OR MYSELF AND MANY OTHERS INCLUDING THE VUNERABLE PATIENTS NEGLECTED AT BOOTHAM IN WHICH THE PCT PERVERTED THE COURSE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE!.once again..an inquiry is required into the abuses of the vunerable.and psychiatric assessments of doctors and nurses who abuse should be mandatory.research shows a disturbing TREND of corporate narcissistic behaviour in the nhs-particularly among management-using co dependants to act out the same.bullying is rife in the nhs to staff and patients ..they also tend to have extreme obsessions-power addicts-grandiose -superiority- god like complex behaviour -like northyorkshire&york pct and york district management.acting the charmer while behind the mask of respectability is evil where fraud,lies and deceit/corruption is rife and contempt for the law ..breaching regulations-failing to seek legal advice=pursing personal vendettas.it appears that hempsons nhs lawyers dont wish to defend them-hardly surprising when they send abusive fraudulent and defammatory letters-no lawyer complying with their code of conduct would allow.independant investigations of the nhs are required to protect the public from harm.sack them and bring in gerry robinson to sought the matter s out and restore faith in the nhs.corrupt management is widspread before more needless deaths and coverups ocur…

      Reply
  12. Peter Hofschröer

     /  02/08/2011

    That would be mean. I certainly would not do such a thing. 😉

    Reply
    • Peter Hofschröer

       /  03/08/2011

      I got an answer very quickly. It would seem that HMIC already had a policy on answering enquiries about Maxwell. They ignored my request to ask for Roger Baker’s comments on these allegations against Maxwell and his gang. Instead, they claimed that dealing with complaints against the police was not part of their remit, so I replied:

      ——– Original Message ——–
      Subject: Re: Complaint
      Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:18:04 +0200
      From: Peter Hofschröer
      To: HMIC-Northern Region

      Dear Mr Sinnett,

      Thank you for your reply.

      I do understand the situation that HMIC does not have a remit to deal with complaints against the police and indeed that is not what I requested in my e-mail. What I did request was,

      > Please ask Roger Baker for his comments on the allegations against Maxwell on this website:
      > http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/the-abuse-of-grandma-b-by-peter-hofschroer

      Would you kindly forward my e-mail to Mr Baker and ask him to send me his comments?

      Thank you.

      Yours sincerely,
      Peter Hofschröer

      ***

      Just after sending off my e-mail, I heard the news about Cleveland police, so I send HMIC a further enquiry:

      ——- Original Message ——–
      Subject: HMIC and Cleveland Police
      Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:25:29 +0200
      From: Peter Hofschröer
      To: HMIC-Northern Region

      Dear Mr Sinnett,

      Just after answering your previous e-mail, I came across today’s news in the Telegraph. Please see:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8679223/Chief-constable-and-deputy-arrested-over-corruptuion-allegations.html

      Interestingly, this article mentions the following:

      > Sean Price, the chief constable of Cleveland Police, and Derek Bonnard, the deputy chief constable, were arrested this morning and questioned by detectives.
      >
      > The inquiry is being conducted after Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) asked Warwickshire police to investigate allegations of corruption at the Cleveland force.

      Would you kindly let me know how I could go about having HMIC instigate a corruption enquiry into North Yorkshire Constabulary?

      Looking forward to hearing from you.

      Yours sincerely,
      Peter Hofschröer

      Reply
      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  10/08/2011

        Still no reply from Sinnett to:

        “Would you kindly let me know how I could go about having HMIC instigate a corruption enquiry into North Yorkshire Constabulary?”

        If the requested enquiry went ahead, presumably Cleveland Police would be requested to investigate NYP….

      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  23/08/2011

        And still no reply. I wonder why.

        He could try being honest and state that HMIC has no intention of investigating the corrupt behaviour of its friends, then do the decent thing and resign. And, oh of course, repay the taxpayers money he has taken for not doing the job for which he has been paid.

        Now am I naive, or what?

        Right of silence, again?

      • sharon wilson

         /  20/08/2011

        I do not believe the inspectorate of constabulary is protecting the publics interest and should resign.he has ignored correspondence before. .
        twice I have written to joannegreenberg qc which was passed to the nypa for there consideration-no response!!which shows the contempt in which we are treated,any barrister of good repute would find it very disturbing that jane kenyon chairman had witheld such serious allegations while the misconduct hearing was going on-i wonder why?i am still waiting for a reponse from chief superintendent lewis raw .iinrespect of the malicious and fraudulent informationation circulated behind my back by steve mason legal service manager(hes not a lawyer)and dr geddes.jayne brown- also the signing of documents known be fraudulent misrepresentation . dr geddes instructs this to many!.we know where they get it from!jayne brown also claims best care is having no teeth to eat on pus ousing 24.7 no monitoring many medical conditions neglected!!i was asked when had i seen a doctor they werent worth their salt!!.I am requesting another police force to investigate. deliberate misreporting of my chest xrays/jaw xray and ecgs-to WITHOLD TREATMENT. by york district radiologists doctors-no error of judgement-it appears common practice for doctors to falsify records and deliberately withold treatment to complainants!the chest xrays ect showed serious and lifethreatening conditions-collapsing unable to breathe-serious chest infections from pus ousing 24/7 into the chest-thick yellow-disgusting-the teeth could have been extracted in 04 if detective warner had not been corrupt!.themouth shocking -human rights ignored.andrew lansley and david cameron should be sacked,david cameron was quoted in the book refusing treatment IN the nhs-THE NHS is just wonderful!!ignoring needless deaths which continue despite the midstaff inquiry!!!the minIsters should be brought before the courts!a criminal investigation should proceed inTO midstaff.professor sally davies chief medical officer should resign-obsructing the inquiry-corruption should be rooted out of the government.i also note another lady whos child died from neglect-the hospital fabricated information upon her wanting aNswers and sent the POLICE ROUND!!to a bereaved mother-the nhs management want sackIng and brought before the courts.weve come across many corrupt and -DISHONEST AND VEXATIOUS MANAGEMENT.HARRASSMENT WARNINGS APPEAR COMMON PRACTICE OF GAGGING BY THE POLICE.

  13. Nigel Ward

     /  03/08/2011

    Very grave allegations of corruption in many forms have been levelled at high-ranking police officers up and down the country. This latest:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8679223/Chief-constable-and-deputy-arrested-over-corruptuion-allegations.html

    comes directly on the heels of HMIC Inspection Support Manager Chris Sinnett writing to me this morning, dismissing my attempt to alert the HMIC to the Bowsher/Hofschröer /Wilson/Scott allegations as nothing more than a ‘complaint’ – and a ‘complaint’ to the wrong body, at that:

    Dear Sir

    COMPLAINT AGAINST NORTH YORKSHIRE POLICE

    I can confirm receipt of your correspondence dated 2 August.

    Since the formation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), HMIC no longer has responsibility for complaints against the police. This is the responsibility of the force itself and the IPCC. HMIC has no status as an appellant body when complainants are dissatisfied with the outcomes of actions taken either by the force or the IPCC. The role of HMIC is to examine (and help improve) the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces through inspection.

    I am unable to offer any further assistance on this occasion.

    Yours sincerely

    Chris Sinnett
    Inspection Support Manager

    HMIC stand for HER MAJESTY’S INSPECTORATE of CONSTABULARIES.

    I was trying to help you to do your job, Mr Sinnett. You draw your salary, don’t you?

    What do you think about doing what WE PAY YOU for?

    Reply
    • Peter Hofschröer

       /  03/08/2011

      This is my correspondence with him:

      —- Original Message —–
      From: Peter Hofschröer
      To: HMIC-Northern Region
      Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:25 PM
      Subject: HMIC and Cleveland Police

      Dear Mr Sinnett,

      Just after answering your previous e-mail, I came across today’s news in the Telegraph. Please see:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8679223/Chief-constable-and-deputy-arrested-over-corruptuion-allegations.html

      Interestingly, this article mentions the following:

      > Sean Price, the chief constable of Cleveland Police, and Derek Bonnard, the deputy chief constable, were arrested this morning and questioned by detectives.
      >
      > The inquiry is being conducted after Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) asked Warwickshire police to investigate allegations of corruption at the Cleveland force.

      Would you kindly let me know how I could go about having HMIC instigate a corruption enquiry into North Yorkshire Constabulary?

      Looking forward to hearing from you.

      Yours sincerely,
      Peter Hofschröer

      On 03/08/2011 14:18, Peter Hofschröer wrote:
      > Dear Mr Sinnett,
      >
      > Thank you for your reply.
      >
      > I do understand the situation that HMIC does not have a remit to deal with complaints against the police and indeed that is not what I requested in my e-mail. What I did request was,
      >
      >> Please ask Roger Baker for his comments on the allegations against Maxwell on this website:
      >> http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/the-abuse-of-grandma-b-by-peter-hofschroer
      >
      > Would you kindly forward my e-mail to Mr Baker and ask him to send me his comments?
      >
      > Thank you.
      >
      > Yours sincerely,
      > Peter Hofschröer
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On 03/08/2011 14:00, HMIC-Northern Region wrote:
      >>
      >> Please see the attached correspondence
      >>
      >> Regards
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Chris Sinnett
      >>
      >> Inspection Support Manager
      >>
      >> HMIC Northern Region
      >>
      Dear Mr Hofschröer

      COMPLAINT AGAINST NORTH YORKSHIRE POLICE

      I can confirm receipt of your correspondence dated 2 August.

      Since the formation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), HMIC no longer has responsibility for complaints against the police. This is the responsibility of the force itself and the IPCC. HMIC has no status as an appellant body when complainants are dissatisfied with the outcomes of actions taken either by the force or the IPCC. The role of HMIC is to examine (and help improve) the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces through inspection.

      I am unable to offer any further assistance on this occasion.

      Yours sincerely

      Chris Sinnett
      Inspection Support Manager

      ***

      It looks like a standard reply to information provided on the criminal activities of Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell was prepared in advance and sent out to everybody that wrote in almost by return.

      Should Sinnett (appropriate name for somebody that earns his money lying on behalf of the police, eh?) reply to my request for an enquiry into the corruption in NYP, I will post it.

      I’m not holding my breath.

      Reply
      • SHARON WILSON

         /  06/08/2011

        I would like to see an independant police psychologist who work in 3 areas supporting police forces to ehance police organizational structure and process -police leadership-command/assessment /public safety ect -the police are neglecting their duty to the elderly/disabled/vunerable-reckless endangerment-the public have no faith where there is corruption and abuse of power.organizational problems are evident.failing to comply with the 7 principles of public life.police corruption is widespread.I recall an FBI CHIEF STATING HE WAS HAVING NONE OF IT!WHICH INCLUDED CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ! WHY HASNT CHIEF CONSTABLE MAXWELL FOLLOWED HIS EXAMPLE????

      • SHARON WILSON

         /  06/08/2011

        Dear Peter

        I am supporting the need for an integrity/anti-corruption independant unit to investigate the conduct of northyorkshire police-failure to do so will be detrimemtal to public confidence and undermines the wholeforce.

      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  06/08/2011

        @ Sharon

        Thanks for your message of support.

        I’m told it is likely there will be questions in the House on this case, though obviously not from local MPs, as they all seem quite happy to ignore the rampant official corruption in their constituencies.

        Long-term, like you, I hope that current scandals lead to an overhaul of how complaints against officials are dealt with.

        A good couple of dozen police officers from chief constable to police constable are actively involved in abusing Grandma B, so it is not a case of a couple of bad apples here, but a fermenting barrel.

        It was interesting to hear that David Cameron wanted an American to sort out the Met. He too has no confidence in the British police tyding up their own house.

    • sharon wilson

       /  19/08/2011

      the police failed in their duty to shipmans victims-detective inspector smith failed to even take notes!the taxi driver john shaw knew patients were being murdered-no one listened infact a chief superintendent stated if he had told him his clients were being murdered he said he would have thought he was anutter!!blindeyed?naive?or dishonest?well known fact doctors bury there mistakes or murders-silent killings-ask dr phil hammond private eye.the police never listened that the ripper tape was a hoax-yet an fbi agent came to england and stated it was to british police while having a drink in the pub it was a hoax!!.the police need to listen to the public.

      Reply
  14. Tom Brown

     /  05/08/2011

    If the powers that be employ a rogue then is it not the power at fault rather than the rogue?
    The Prime Minister, The Home Secretary, The chair of a police force are the powers. Then, if they are all elected by us isn’t it us who are at fault, or does fear and greed lead these elected entities towards their betrayal.
    Brussels and their agent,’Common Purpose’ create the fear and feed the greed.
    ‘Common Purpose’ Brian Gerrish Google them.

    Reply
  15. SHARON WILSON

     /  06/08/2011

    NHS/POLICE CORRUPTION DR KERR/DR HASLAM ABUSING MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS-I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE POLICE FAILED TO ACT UPON ALLEGATIONS STAFF WERE PAID TO KEEP QUIET???
    I NOTE COMMENTS IN THE ;LOCAL PRESS DENYING EVIDENCE BY THE POLICE AND ALSO BY DR PETER KENNEDY EX CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE YORK TRUST-WHOM REMOVED HIMSELF FROM THE GMC-HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE INQUIRY-IN WHICH DR HASLAM WAS JAILED-DR KERR TO ILL TO STAND TRIAL.I NOTE DR KENNEDY CLAIMED THE SAME NO EVIDENCE UPON MY ALLEGATIONS-!I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO EVERYONES ATTENTION DR KENNEDY FABRICATED A REPORT BEHIND MY BACK-SO INTENT ON MALICE HE FORGOT DATES AND TIMES ARE REQUIRED CONSULTATIONS -WHICH CANNOT BE PRODUCED-THE TRUST HAD A DUTY TO CALL IN THE POLICE-BUT AS IS USUAL TOO BUSY BEING CORRUPt!.DR KENNEDY ALSO REMAINED ON THE REGISTER OF ROYAL
    COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS! WHILE HE REMOVED HIMSELF FROM THE GMC.I t IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM HE HAD ASSESSED ME!HE DID NOT LIKE MY LEAFLET REGARDING SUPPORT FOR DR BOLSIN-THE BABY BRISTOL INQUIRY!.AND NHS ABUSE EXPOSURE . WHERE IS HE NOW????I WOULD LIKE THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE HIS MALICE HAS CAUSED SERIOUS HARM.
    I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE POLICE HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED DR SUSAN SHAW-GUARDIAN PAPER ABUSING THE MENTALLY ILL-ONCE AGAIN THE PCT/YORKTRUST PERVERTING THE COURSE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE.I SUSPECT THE LIST OF FAILINGS BY NORTH YORKSHIRE POLICE WILL GO ON AND ON.IT IS NOTED SIGNING DOCUMENTS KNOWN TO BE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION-BY THE PCT/YORK TRUST STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE!.

    Reply
    • Peter Hofschröer

       /  06/08/2011

      @ Sharon

      Thanks for this interesting post. The same names keep coming up again in other cases.

      When this affair began three years ago, I was naive enough to think we just had a couple of bent cops and dodgy social workers. I thought their managers would deal with them, and that would be that.

      After three years, it is clear we have endemic corruption throughout the authorities in at least N. E. England.

      Once Grandma B’s complaint against the SS reached the Stage 2 level, we were invited to meet then the chief executive of York Council Bill McCarthy. He assured us he would deal with certain matters. He did not. He then left York Council and went on to run the North Yorks Primary Care Trust, where I think he still is.

      Both his sucessors have ignored offers to resolve our dispute in an amicable discussion.

      This and other events added to my growing suspicions that we were not dealing with a bent cop or two or a dodgy social worker.

      Three years down the line it is obvious we are in the realms of endemic corruption and serious organised crime committed by officials against a large number of people.

      Reply
  16. Nigel Ward

     /  06/08/2011

    @ Sharon Wilson:

    Given the circumstances and events you have described, I want to tell you that I have the deepest admiration for your courage and integrity in bringing these matters to the attention of the general public.

    I have been informed by Mr Chris Sinnett of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies that, although it is the case that it is the HMIC remit “to examine (and help improve) the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces through inspection”, it is also the case that “HMIC has no statutory duty to investigate complaints against staff of ACPO rank” – in other words, any wrong-doing by senior officers of the North Yorkshire and/or Cleveland Police is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS. He has not told me whose business it is.

    In my considerable experience, no public sector complaints procedures actually address complaints. They obfuscate, prevaricate and divert the complainant by any means available. In plain language, they CLOSE RANKS to ensure that no-one within the system is ever held accountable for wrong-doing or incompetence. This is applicable to local authorities, the health services and police forces.

    My advice to you is to keep close contact with your fellow complainants REGULARLY, so that it becomes quickly apparent if the authorities attempt any unlawful action against you. And take care.

    Reply
    • Peter Hofschröer

       /  07/08/2011

      I got a similar answer from Mr Sinnett. When I pointed out to him that HMIC was actiually investigating corruption in Cleveland Police and asked him to see to it that North Yorkshire Police was similarly investigated – and I even offered him the services of the fraud investigator I have on the case – I was deafened by the silence.

      Let’s hope they take up my offer shortly.

      Reply
      • sharon wilson

         /  20/08/2011

        CERTAINLY ALSO NEED FOR A FRAUD INVESTIGATOR INTO THE CONDUCT OF NORTHYORKSHIRE&YORK PCT-THE STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY-YORK DISTRICT HOSPITAL WHOM SHOW ARROGANCE AND CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW..VERY SUSPICIOUS HOW THE DEBTS KEEP RISING -PLENTY TO FLASH OUT ON EXPENSIVE ACCOUNTANTS WHOM CANT DO THIER JOB-THE SHA !FLASH CARS/DINNERS/HOTELS-WHILE PEOPLE DIE AND ARE UNABLE TO GET TREATMENT..LETS NOT FOR GET LORD WARNERS COMMENTS THE PCT GROSSLY INCOMPETANT AND ALSO LORD WALTONS REPORT -APPALLING TREATMENT OF THE CHILDREN WITH MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY FAILING TO RECEIVE SERVICES.SHOCKING.YET APROX 250.000 WAS SPENT ON TRYING TO HAVE THE PHARMACIST SACKED-DR GEDDES’S PURSUES PERSONAL VENDETTAS. NO EVIDENCE AS USUAL WITH THE PCT-ALL WANT SACKING-NEW MANAGEMENT -AND OUTSIDE INVESTIGATIONS.
        THE PCT IS IN CRISIS CaNT MANAGE ITS BOOKS-THAT WAS WHY PROFESSOR HUGO-MACIE TAYLOR WAS BROUGHT IN-JAYNE BROWNS COMMENTS FARCICAL IN THE PRESS AS IS USUAL-THE PCT IS ONE OF THE WORST PERFORMING AND I ALSO REMIND PEOPLE
        ARE UNDER THE WATCH OF THE CARE QUALITY COMMISSION AND ALSO FAIL TO IMPLEMENT PATIENT SAFETY ALERTS.IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THE PCT AND YORK DISTRICT S END OFFENSIVE AND ABUSIVE LETTERS AND WHICH ARE MANIPULATIVE TO TRY AND FEIGN VICTIMHOOD AND CONCEAL WRONGDOING.THE BBC HAVE BEEN TO YORK DISTRICT BEFORE -AND OTHER PATIENTS REQUEST A PROBE.YORK DISTRICT IS ANOTHER MIDSTAFF.WE NOTE THEY LIKE TO KEEP IT INT HE FAMILY CRIMES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.JEREMY CLOUGH A CRIMINAL IS WITH LINCOLN PCT WHOM INCOLLUSION WITH DR GEDDES CIRCULATED A MALICIOUS LETTER AND FRAUDULENT-6 YEARS ON I STILL AWAIT EVIDENCE.INTERESTINGLY DETECTIVE WARNER REPEATED THE EXACT CONTENTS! THE PCT .CLAIMED TO HAVE ALSO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED ALL MY COMPLAINTS !BLATANT FRAUD.DR GEDDES HAS INSTRUCTED I MOVE AROUND EVERY 7 DAYS PRACTICES IN YORK WHICH HE HAS BEEN DOING FOR YEARS TO SHOW WE “HATE COMPLAINANTS”<WHOM ARE VICTIMS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE.DR VERNON COLEMAN INFORMED.contracts are 3 months. .

  17. Al Roberts

     /  10/08/2011

    From
    http://www.acpo.police.uk/ProfessionalPractice/Default.aspx

    The Association of Chief Police Officers is responsible for defining national standards and professional practice in key areas of policing. Standards and practice provide a framework which supports accountability, interoperability and improvement in working practices across the police service and its partners. In high risk areas of policing they help ensure consistency of approach, underpin training and business processes and thereby better protect the public. All standards and practice are agreed collectively by Chief Constables through ACPO Cabinet and Council before adoption. ACPO guidance and practice advice defines nationally agreed good practice for forces, but accountability as to whether to adhere to such guidance rests with chief constables who are operationally independent.

    There ya go then, the last sentence says it all,eh.

    Reply
  18. DKP

     /  10/08/2011

    It is very interesting to note that this story and the closely related story of the Richard Bowsher letter have between them logged over well over 2,700 unique views (probably far more, allowing for multiple viewers through corporate platforms) and not one of the 160-odd comments is in support of the police officers against whom all these terrible allegations have been made.

    And yet…and yet…

    No sooner does a new comment by Peter Hofschröer or Richard Ineson or Nigel Ward or D N Pinder or Frank Chalmers appear than, sure enough, somebody clicks a thumbs-down next to it – without even having had time to read it properly.

    I am wondering why the gutless weasel who does it doesn’t have the courage to show their support for these disgraced police officials by posting a coherent argument in their defence. Perhaps there just isn’t one?

    Reply
  19. Peter Hofschröer

     /  10/08/2011

    Well, we know NYP are observing this site (and others on which they are being criticised for their criminal behaviour).

    We know that an anonymous caller claiming to be from NYP’s press office made a threatening phone call (which has not been acted on).

    That is the MO of Maxwell & Co.

    And of course there is not a coherent counter-argument. A while ago, my brother (who is a member of the gang abusing my mother – and others) wrote to her pleading with her not to push to far with this enquiry for fear of what will come out.

    Is there enough space left in jails in Britain to house both rioters and all of North Yorkshire Constabulary? And Cleveland Police, and, and, and not to mention the Met.

    Reply
  20. Frank L. Chalmers

     /  14/08/2011

    I don’t know if I’ll get a response. But I have sent this to Jane Kenyon in the hopes that she will confirm that there is an investigation ongoing, and that the public interest will be protected from corruption, and the alleged racketeering, etc.

    I will follow up with any response.

    As others have shown, the need for hiding these things in dark places is over, and I am happy to publish this stuff if it means we get the best value from the services we are forced to pay for.

    From: Frank Chalmers (email@email)
    Sent: 13 August 2011 10:32:52
    To: cllr.jane.kenyon@northyorks.gov.uk

    Dear Cllr Kenyon,

    No doubt you have seen some of the allegations against Police that are being made over the internets at the present. Not to mention the allegations being made in the national media about Police corruption, and so on.

    Given the allegations being made on one of the local news sites, can you tell me if these are being investigated by the Police? I have pasted these articles to the end of my email for you to see, in case you haven’t yet seen them.

    If they are not being investigated, why not?

    One of these sets of allegations makes reference to your professional relationship with Chief Constable Maxwell, and Chief Executive Jeremy Holderness. The relevant quote is: ”

    The Maxwell/Holderness/Kenyon relationship is an unhealthy one and needs to be terminated immediately in the public interest.”

    This is particularly disturbing. Although, I trust that you will be able to allay my concerns quickly and easily.

    In my opinion, the Police are beginning to look like a “mafia-style organisation”, engaged in activities such as “racketeering”, “intimidation”, and so on. I presume you can show that this is not the case, not just to me, but the people at large.

    Thank you for your time.

    In sincerity,

    Francis L. Chalmers

    Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  23/08/2011

      yes it liiks that way and to the most vunerable.

      Reply
  21. Peter Hofschröer

     /  19/08/2011

    I assume Dear Jane is exercising her right to silence here.

    Reply
  22. sharon wilson

     /  20/08/2011

    i would like to know what the lord chief justice and the attorney general have to say about the conduct of public bodies ..
    david cameron needs to clean up his own backyard first and also root out corruption..the doh tried to conceal the number of midstaff deaths-i dont know how david cameron sleeps at night “, .the fact that many babies-children-mums dads-aunts and uncles ect DIE NEEDLESSLY AT THE HANDS OF THE NHS!the petition for duty of candour -robbie powell whom tragically died from addisions disease which was treatable his father is till fighting for justice years on and also came across corrupt police officers and went through serveral police forces.across the country there are horrifc stores of neglect which has gone on for years and ministers ignore-it is imprtant to note they also turned there backs on the nhsreformgroup!mr lansley stated on tv that any failing trusts action will be taken-alan milburn claimed years ago nhs satff will be sacked for covering up!!empty words-the QUEENS aide had written to andy burnham and he failed to respond-yet the QUeen had personally seen serious dental disease!!andy burnham had numerous deaths also!7 principles of public life ignored-charles is quite right to intervene!the countrys a mess!!which once could be said to be proud of!.bring the lying corrupt managers to court..it is noted professor sally davies remains silent!.chief medical officer ignoring statute.and criminal conduct of the medical profession-a conspiracy to hide there own shortcomings..

    Reply
  23. Peter Hofschröer

     /  21/08/2011

    York Police Refuse to Investigate Burglary of 82 year-old Great-Grandmother

    The thread of e-mails below are between the fraud investigator working for Grandma B and various officers of North Yorkshire Constabulary.

    To recap this episode in brief, Grandma B’s oldest son Robert Hofschröer and his two adult children Diane and Martin defrauded their elderly parents of their house in Acomb, York. After Grandma B’s husband of 60 years died, her abusers intensified their campaign of abuse against the surviving victim with the intention of driving her out of her house so they could fraudulently sell it.

    They unlawfully evicted her in February 2010, before trying to sell her house. Fortunately, Grandma B’s solicitors prevented them from doing so.

    Robert Hofschröer is employed by York Social Services and runs York Deaf Society. Many of his colleagues have supported his campaign of harassment of his disabled mother, committing serious criminal offences to assist him. Obviously, they also enjoy the full support of the Chief Executive of the City of York Council Kersten England and her senior management, who continue to direct vulnerable people to a serial abuser they know to be violently psychotic. That is how seriously senior officers of the City of York Council take their duty of care to the vulnerable. Robert Hofschröer also enjoys the full support of the Lord Mayor Cllr David Horton JP and Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing, who obviously has the portfolio for Adult Social Services, both of whom have committed serious criminal offences to assist their friend.

    What does one expect from a local authority as obviously and blatantly corrupt as the City of York Council?

    Police reports of the unlawful eviction comment on Robert and his son Martin removing Barbara’s and Peter’s property. In common parlance, this is know as theft. Obviously, the York police officers involved did nothing to stop these crimes being committed against a little, old lady on a wheelchair and her carer.

    On the contrary, when neighbours complained, they were told to mind their own business. After all, the police had been observing Grandma B’s house on behalf of her abusers for days now, and when they were sure she was away, they tipped him off and stood by watching as he forced entry.

    What does one expect from the sort of hardened, active, habitual criminals employed by an organisation like North Yorkshire Police? The police officers involved in this systematic abuse of a vulnerable great-grandmother include Inspector (ret) Colin Moreton. Inspector Ian Dyer, PC Graham Cooper, WPC Victoria Lowery and PC Michael Broken, to name but a very few.

    If any of these officers wish to dispute they are involved in a conspiracy to defraud, they are welcome to make their denials in public, take action against me for defamation, sue for damages, whatever.

    I think we all know the score well enough by now to know what they will do: Right to silence.

    Anyway, I digress. Grandma B recently employed bailiffs to regain control of her house. Shortly before this happened, Robert Hofschröer feigned a burglary to cover the theft he and his son committed. He then got his friends from NYP to “investigate”. Being professionals of the highest calibre and men of unquestionable integrity, these officers missed the obvious – that it was in “inside” job in more than one sense. What is more, it would seem that Robert or his son Martin returned to the house after the police had conducted their investigation and stole more items.

    Superintendent Lisa Winward, godmother of the cesspit of corruption known Fulford Road Police Station, was presented with irrefutable evidence of who the burglar was. It would seem that ACC Sue Cross blocked the investigation. Remember, she is the one that according to the IPCC Report into CC Maxwell’s nepotism, expressed surprise at how he had broken a rule, when he was suck a stickler for transparency….

    Grandma B simply wants to return home and spend her remaining years living there is peace and safety. So long as police officers remain at large, she will not be able to do so.

    Will somebody please arrest them all?

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject:
    RE: Hofschroer Case(Crime Number 12110014573) Hofschroer Case (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011)
    Date:
    Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:30:08 +0200
    From:
    Fraud Investigator
    To:
    ‘Winward, Lisa’

    Dear Superintendent Winward,
     
    Further to our meeting on the 5th of July, I am writing to record that as a result of our meeting I have assisted your officers by providing new evidence on the burglary at Barbara Hofschroer’s home which has resulted in the investigation being re-opened, with Robert Hofschroer as the principal suspect. 
     
    I rang to follow up on this and ascertain if North Yorkshire Police required me to attend at Fulford Road Police Station to sign a complaint on behalf of Mrs Hofschroer and Mr Peter Hofschroer and one of your colleagues relayed a message that I should write to the Professional Standards Department at Force Headquarters. 
     
    Obviously I am perplexed at why I cannot conduct a simple enquiry about a burglary with on behalf of Mrs Hofschroer with her local police and have to conduct this with Force Headquarters.  This seems to me to be highly irregular, particularly as Deputy Chief Constable Cross has previously attempted to hinder the investigation into the burglary.
     

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject:
    RE: Burglary. Crime 12110014573
    Date:
    Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:52:36 +0200
    From:
    Fraud Investigator
    To:
    ‘Quinn, Cheryl’

    Dear Detective Constable Quinn,
     
    Thank you for your e mail.  Responding to your questions in the order you raise them:
     
    1.       Peter and Barbara left their house in November or December 2009.
     
    2.      The key holder at the time the burglary was committed in January 2011 was Robert Hofschroer.  Robert Hofschroer entered their house on the 22nd of February 2010 using a locksmith and then changed the locks, he was the key holder from the 22nd of February 2010 until the 4th of July 2011.
     
    3.      The photographs were taken a friend who held a key and looked after the property while Peter and Barbara were away, who accessed the property using the key at the request of Peter Hofschroer the night before Robert entered the property, that is the 21st of February 2010.
     
    Peter asked the key holder to photograph the inside of the house because he expected that Robert would complain about the state the property was in and wanted proof that the property was well looked after.  Subsequently Robert Hofschroer falsely accused Peter Hofschroer of neglecting the property and neglecting his mother and the photographs were used to refute this.
     
    4.      The photographs of the wash hand basin with the watch were taken by Mr Walker on Monday the 4th of July at 18.30.  He accessed the house on the instruction of Mr Peter Hofschroer using a locksmith in my presence.
     
    5.      The photographs of the wash hand basin with the watch were taken by Mr Walker on Monday the 4th of July at 18.30.  He accessed the house on the instruction of Mr Peter Hofschroer using a locksmith in my presence.
     
    I hope that this information is of assistance to you.  I am concerned that:
     
    1.      The Police occurrence log states that Robert and Martin were seen taking items out of the house.  They had no property there, so they were apparently stealing the property of Peter and Barbara Hofschroer.
     
    2.      The SOCO report states that the garage was accessed using a key or the garage door was left unsecured.  This is a clear indication that the burglary was arranged, probably to conceal the fact that property had been taken from the house by Robert and Martin Hofschroer.
     
    3.       The bottom of the kitchen door was wooden not glass and the bolt could not therefore be accessed from outside by breaking the glass.  The bolt on the bottom of the kitchen door had been removed before the burglary.  I can think of no reason for removing the bolt other than to weaken the door and make it easier to force it.  Peter and Barbara are both adamant that it was in place when they left.
     
    4.       Although Robert Hofschroer made great play that the bolt had been removed from the bottom of the door in his letter to Peter Hofschroer, he did not bring this to the attention of the SOCO on the day or subsequently.  The watch was kept in a drawer in Mrs Hofschroer’s bedroom.
     
    5.      It is clear from the SOCOs report that the broken glass had been moved.
     
    6.      Robert Hofschroer is specific that only the TV and the two monitors were taken in the alleged burglary.  He does not mention that the DVD player and the glass shelf it was on disappeared and an attempt was made to take the two brackets.  The SOCO Report does not mention this either, although it is very obvious.  It appears obvious therefore that it was taken after the burglary and as Robert Hofschroer is the only person that had a key it must have been taken by him.  Mr Walker is a Certificated Bailiff.
     
    7.      When we secured the house, Mr Walker mentioned that he had seen the bracket from the TV in the house, in the garage I think, although this is not mentioned in the SOCO Report.
     
    This is part of a long running saga of harassment of Peter and Barbara Hofschroer by Robert Hofschroer both in the UK and while they have been in Austria.  I would therefore like to ask that the investigation into the burglary is widened to include the wider campaign of harassment that it is part of.
     
    I hope this is helpful.  I am happy to come to Fulford Road Police Station to sign a complaint on behalf of Mr and Mrs Hofschroer against Robert Hofschroer, or assist your enquiries in any way I can.
     
    I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
     
    From: Quinn, Cheryl [mailto:Cheryl.Quinn@northyorkshire.pnn.police.uk]
    Sent: jeudi 14 juillet 2011 11:47
    To: Fraud Investigator
    Subject: Burglary. Crime 12110014573
     
    Timothy,
    I am in receipt of your emails and photographs which relate to Barbara Hofschröer’s home, York.  Due to this new information I am further investigating the burglary which occurred at this address earlier this year.
    To assist me in this matter I require some further information and would be grateful if you could answer the following questions for me;
    1.      What date did Peter and Barbara leave their home. 
    2.      Who had keys to the address their home at the time the burglary was committed.
    3.      In relation to the photographs of the hand basin without the watch and the living area showing the television and dvd player.
            Can you please inform me of the name and address of the person who took these photographs?
            What date were the photographs taken?
            How did the person taking the photographs access the house?
    4.      In relation to the photograph of the hand basin with the watch.
            Can you please inform me of the name and address of the person who took this photograph.
            What date was this photograph taken?
            How did the person taking the photographs access the house?
            When was the watch last seen by Peter or Barbara and where was the watch when they last saw it?
    5.      In relation to the photograph of the kitchen door and bolt taken by Mr Walker.
            Can you please supply me with details of Mr Walker.
            What date was the photograph taken?
    Thank you for your assistance in this matter
    Cheryl Quinn
    DC 1601
    York CID
    North Yorkshire Police
    0845 6060247
     

    Reply
  24. Peter Hofschröer

     /  21/08/2011

    Oh! And if in case what is going on here is not immediately clear:

    If the police arrest Robert Hofschröer, they will be running the risk of him, to protect himself, spilling the beans about they racket being run by senior officials in North Yorkshire, including senior police officers, in which they are systematically targeting isolated vulnerable people and plundering their assets, in which Robert Hofschröer plays a major role.

    Reply
  25. admin

     /  23/08/2011

    We have received the following email from York City Council. We are looking into their request and may be removing this article shortly.

    Dear Sir,

    I am writing to give you notice that the message thread which appears here:

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/the-abuse-of-grandma-b-by-peter-hofschroer

    contains defamatory material. Legally you are treated as being the publisher of this material and will be liable to have proceedings commenced against you unless you remove the thread immediately.

    Please notify me that you have done so. Many thanks.

    Yours faithfully,

    Andy Docherty
    Assistant Director Governance and ICT
    City of York Council
    01904 551004

    Reply
    • admin

       /  23/08/2011

      Here is our response to York Council. We are currently taking legal advice on this and will keep our readers informed of the outcome.

      Hi Andy,

      Thank you for getting in touch. I will be looking into this matter for you. In the mean time could you please send your complaint in writing to myself at (name and address removed). Could you also detail which part of the article you feel is defamatory. Is it the whole article ? part of the article (If so please provide details so that we can consider appropriate moderation) or any of the comments (Again please detail which, so that we can consider appropriate moderation).

      Best regards – Real Whitby

      Reply
      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  23/08/2011

        Good one, admin. I seem to recall when NYP and NYPA made similar threats, asking for specifics resulted in them exercising their right of silence.

        Let’s see if Dear Andy is as smart.

      • Nigel Ward

         /  23/08/2011

        —– Original Message —–
        From: Nigel
        To: andrew.docherty@york.gov.uk
        Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:13 AM
        Subject: Allegations of libel

        Mr Andy DOCHERTY – Assistant Director Governance and ICT – City of York Council

        Andy,

        My attention has been drawn to an email purporting to be from you and now appearing on the Real Whitby news-blog. I have copied it below for your convenience of reference. The email arouses conspicuous public interest.

        The content of that email implies that you are in possession of information that you contend is evidential of the fact that the Real Whitby article contains ‘defamatory’ statements. Defamation in written form is known as libel.

        As I am sure you are aware, the DirectGov website offers guidance on the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

        http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239

        In particular, I draw your attention to the following excerpt:

        “The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Unless there’s a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within 20 working days. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you.”

        Under the auspices of the FOIA, please treat this as a formal request to produce all information held by the City of York Council such as provides evidence that all or any of the remarks reproduced on the Real Whitby article that is the subject of your email are untrue.

        You have twenty working days in which to provide that information.

        Meanwhile, I await your acknowledgement of my request accompanied by a designated FOIA number. Thank you.

        For your information, it is my preference to be addressed by my given name – ‘Nigel’ – and I find it deeply offensive to be addressed as ‘Mr Ward’ or ‘Mr Nigel Ward’. You will oblige me by adhering to my stated preference in future correspondence.

        It is accepted ‘best practice’, in the interests of transparency, to include all preceding emails of a given ‘thread’ within the textual body of all subsequent emails on that topic, this giving all parties a convenient overview of the correspondence thus far. I would be obliged if you would adhere to that ‘best practice’ in future correspondence.

        For clarity, and in the interests of transparency, I reserve the right to include members of the press and public as undisclosed recipients in my correspondence, and to publish that correspondence in the media and on the world wide web.

        Yours, with very kind regards,

        Nigel.
        ——————————————————————————–
        “For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture – and it’s called transparency.” – [David Cameron]

        “If councillors and council officers are to be held to account, the press and public need access to the information that will enable them to do it. If town halls want to reduce the amount they spend on responding to freedom of information requests they should consider making the information freely available in the first place. The simple act of throwing open the books, rather than waiting for them to be prised apart by the force of an FOI, might even save a few pounds in the process.” – [Eric Pickles]

      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  23/08/2011

        Ah! That reminds me!

        I applied for sight of my elderly parents’ social services files some years ago. It was clear from the material I was sent that certain documents were missing.

        I established by cross referencing mentions of previous meetings, e-mails, etc. on the documents I was given sight of that certain documents had been withheld.

        The context indicated that these documents were potentially incriminating.

        Let me give you an example:

        I reported the abuse my parents were getting from my brother and his family to my father’s social worker in September 2008. She started an investigation, which confirmed my allegations. Unbeknown to me at the time, the investigation was stopped immediately it was clear that my social worker brother was abusing his parents. I only found this out later, when I got sight of my father’s social services file, at least the few pages CYC let me see.

        This material I was given did not include any of the documentation referring to the investigation into the abuse allegations.

        CYC ignored my complaints, so I raised the issue with the ICO. I seem to recall about a year ago, the ICO issued a Decision Notice requiring CYC to give me sight of certain documents. CYC is refusing to comply with the law and give me copies of these potentially incriminating documents.

        Maybe Mr Docherty would like to tell us why.

        Something about a conspiracy to defraud vulnerable, old people by York council officers, perhaps?

    • sharon wilson

       /  23/08/2011

      this is laugable mr docherty i will be reporting mr dochertys conduct to the law society he is aware of serious crime being committed-by nhs staff and
      and social services-and the police-sue me then mr docherty.
      i note my social records are malicious and fraudulent -the conduct is disgraceful as a lawyer!!!the council has no reputation to defend the judge will see!!!. i note he failed to address francis hoyle social worker misleading the police.i note mr dochertys conduct as negligent in my case.perhaps he should read manfield qc libel and .defammation !!!.we are protecting the public interest.you are failingn in your duty as a solicitor and should be sacked.failing to uphold the law with the highest regard!.being aware of perverting the course of public justice and concealing arrestable offences!.failing to comply with the human rights convention.polygraph testing is available,I would also like to draw to the public attention that
      francis hoyle behind my back tried to deter my advcoate from acting on my behalf and use icas where steve mason maliciously and fraudulent sent information-what does mr docherty have to say about that????.your staff will be sued for there malice and inhumane treatment!.i also request a lawyer at my meeting mr docherty.the council shows contempt for the law.i am also seeking a judge.

      Reply
    • Nigel Ward

       /  23/08/2011

      Allow me to draw Andy Docherty’s attention to the following excerpt from the eHow web-site:

      Libel is printed or, in some states, broadcast defamation — an expression of printed words and statements that damage a person’s community standing and integrity by attacking the individual’s character or professional abilities. The plaintiff, the person who files the complaint, bears the burden of proof and therefore must show that libel did in fact occur. Follow the steps to learn how to prove libel.

      Instructions

      1. Show defamation. Prove that there was in fact defamatory language that shows badly on your morality or integrity or questions your credibility in your profession.

      2. Explain identification. Show that the libelous statements in question refer to you and show that at least one reader could identify you as the defamed person.

      3. Demonstrate publication. Prove the public received–generally that they read–the libelous statements.

      4. Prove fault. Show negligence or recklessness, if not intent to defame, on the part of the defendant.

      5. Establish falsity. Prove that the published statements were untrue. You only need to prove this in cases involving public concern.

      6. Confirm personal harm. Show the loss of reputation, emotional distress or money. If there was no personal harm done, and instead the published statements just caused annoyance, for example, there is no libel suit.

      Number 5 is the cruncher, Andy. ESTABLISH FALSITY. “The plaintiff, the person who files the complaint, BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. . .”

      That is looking like a very tall order indeed, wouldn’t you say, Andy?

      My advice to you is keep your head down and hope the whole thing goes away. (It probably won’t).

      Read more: How to Prove Libel | eHow.co.uk http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_2086301_prove-libel.html#ixzz1Vn4e5q1Z

      Reply
      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  23/08/2011

        This case will end when my now 82 year old mother is able to return to the home she bought with her late husband of 60 years and live there in peace and safety.

        That will mean the people that defrauded her of her house – the York social worker Robert Hofschröer and his two adult children Diane and Martin will have to be charged under the Fraud Act, 2006 for this and the other offences committed, prosecuted and probably jailed.

        This will mean that the numerous police officers, social workers, council officials and local councillors who have conspired with them to defraud of little, old lady on a wheelchair of her assets and have been systematically harassing her for over three years and have unlawfully evicted her from her home before trying to frauduently sell it will face justice.

        The evidence is overwhelming.

        The Question in Parliament is coming.

  26. Peter Hofschröer

     /  23/08/2011

    Perhaps Mr Docherty would first like to explain why CYC has ignored the Local Government Ombudsman’s request made last December to reopen the investigation into the abuse of an 82 year old great-grandmother in which he and his colleagues are actively involved?

    Here’s the most recent e-mail sent to Mr Docherty by the fraud investigator working on behalf of Grandma B. Please note it is dated 2 June 2011 and he has failed in his duty of care towards the victim of serious abuse by York social workers by not responding to it.

    The thread reads:

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: Barbara Hofschroer
    Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:45:56 +0200
    From: Fraud Investigator
    To: ‘Docherty, Andrew’
    CC: ‘Huw Daniel’ ,

    Dear Mr Docherty,

    Further to your e mail below, Deputy Chief Constable Sue Cross of North
    Yorkshire Police has now confirmed that the Police have not in fact received
    a complaint form Councillor Simpson-Laing. I suspected this was the case
    when she failed to provide the crime number or the name f the investigating
    officer.

    I consider that making false allegations of criminal offences is
    unacceptable behaviour by Councillor Simpson-Laing and also by yourself.
    Please can you confirm what is your explanation for this. I wish to include
    this information in the Ombudsman’s report, so please can I have a response
    within the next seven days.

    Please can you also confirm that you are a solicitor.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Fraud Investigator

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Docherty, Andrew [mailto:andrew.docherty@york.gov.uk]
    Sent: mardi 7 décembre 2010 18:14
    To: Fraud Investigator

    Subject: Barbara Hofschroer

    Dear Fraud Investigator,

    Councillor Simpson-Laing has asked me to send you the following message:

    As a Councillor there are limits to how I can intervene in to any Social
    Services case – this is defined by the ‘law of the land’.

    I feel that with the continued nuisance and malicious telephone calls, added
    to the personal attacks which have been sent to me in emails over the last 2
    years, by Mr Hofschroer, that I can no longer be involved in communications
    with yourself.

    I must inform you that I have already had the police involved in this and I
    have, after receiving another call, asked the police to investigate the
    calls I have been receiving from someone connected to this case . I am doing
    so as I have a young child in my house and I do not want them to answer such
    a telephone call.

    In future your emails will not be forwarded to me and can I please ask that
    you direct all future communications to Cath Murray, Andrew Docherty and
    Kersten England.

    Regards

    Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing

    Yours faithfully

    Andy Docherty
    Assistant Director Governance and ICT
    City of York Council
    01904 551004

    *****

    So Mr Docherty, where is the crime no.? Who is the investigating officer? When will CYC comply with its duty of care to a vulnverable person and stop York social woprkers from systematically abusing a vulnerable old, person, as the Ombdusman requested NINE months ago?

    Please do state in public which of the above points are defamatory.

    Please note a Question will be tabled in Parliament shortly

    Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  23/08/2011

      i would like to know why in the past kath murray complaints manager informed me in writing that i was not allowed to ask staff to call the police on neglect!!and abuse!no one came to see me when i stated i had fallen in the bath and could have been found dead or when i told the carer of mental and emotional abuse by doctors-chris sunley ex social worker made no contact-ignored lawyers advice 7 years ago and even libertys!i have today informed them of the web to see if they can assist .the public are at risk=we are entitled to fair comment.and it is in the pubic interest .i would like to ask why mr docherty ignored further correspondence from me-my human rights where are they and to all the vunerable-why are the council not complying with the 7 principles of public life??i will be sending the serious dental photos to liberty.shame on you all.pus for dinner tea breakfast 24/7.vile and causing endocarditis which can be fatal and inn which u received taped evidence but ignored.evil intent.

      Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  23/08/2011

      this happens in the nhs i hear frequently-nyed out of hours service claimed i was abusive to staff-funny that when i said they were all recorded!they wanted to drop it-they banned me from out of hours for 7 years can you believe-falsified lots of time sheets even claimed i was on the phone for 332mins!!threatened me with the police if i rang a doctor-!infact it was a lawyer who advised me to record indeed ian kennedy qc recommends this in view of the bristol inquiry-usa doctors dont mind.i also have recordings-lets stick a needle in your chest cause pneumothorax (spelling might be off)collapse the lung and kill you=-the police have transcript deliberately as opposed to accidently denying treatment-no doctor wants to treat you in york-thats what you get for complaining.dr calder claimed my bloodpressure didnt exist when it did the same with asthma and ms-these were not errors of judgement but premeditated criminal acts-inhalers were witheld the records falsified.dr geddes has purused his personal vendetta for 7 years thats why i have no teeth-and he instructs that i be moved round virtually every practice in york every 7 days to show we HATE complainants-which is why we have a public inquiry-into the failures of the complaints system-he is obsessed and requests all doctors ring him on how to illtreat.
      theres no disputing unfit to practice – the medical records state i agreed her care is far below standard-detective warner noted prima facie-funny how the pct and york trust deny this!what is also documented -.they sent malicious and manipulative letters to myself whom is at risk of death-threaten to have me arrested-dr geddes breaches confidentiality to the police-misleading them-ignores human rights-denys evidence when it is TAPED!.he is also fully aware that the radiologists doctors misreported my chest xrays ect.which showed serious heart and lung disease/infection ..i am requesting an independant policeforce investigatethis is .criminal and malicious and treatment is denied ..all should be sackedl.m not alone horrific stories across the country,i also note dr geddes circulates fraudulent information as with steve mason even to the doh.my line has also been bugged beaware for the clicks -others have also been bugged.the phone is the most common method.i was showed pulmonary hypertension on the chest xray not reported back-radiologist claimed normal-he lied and all doctors knew it-a complex case-failure s to fill in request forms-accurately medical records and so on.not surprising i was asked when had i last seen a doctor theyw erent worth their salt.dr geddes believes the coverup is sustainable,very disturbing out of hours abuse and neglect.

      Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  23/08/2011

      some judges would send to jail with this conduct of recklessness-which shows a serious disregard of professional responsibility.

      Reply
  27. Peter Hofschröer

     /  23/08/2011

    Perhaps Mr Docherty would first like to explain why CYC has ignored the Local Government Ombudsman’s request made last December to reopen the investigation into the abuse of an 82 year old great-grandmother in which he and his colleagues are actively involved?

    Here’s the most recent e-mail sent to Mr Docherty by the fraud investigator working on behalf of Grandma B. Please note it is dated 2 June 2011 and he has failed in his duty of care towards the victim of serious abuse by York social workers by not responding to it.

    The thread reads:

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: Barbara Hofschroer
    Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:45:56 +0200
    From: Fraud Investigator
    To: ‘Docherty, Andrew’
    CC: ‘Huw Daniel’ ,

    Dear Mr Docherty,

    Further to your e mail below, Deputy Chief Constable Sue Cross of North
    Yorkshire Police has now confirmed that the Police have not in fact received
    a complaint form Councillor Simpson-Laing. I suspected this was the case
    when she failed to provide the crime number or the name f the investigating
    officer.

    I consider that making false allegations of criminal offences is
    unacceptable behaviour by Councillor Simpson-Laing and also by yourself.
    Please can you confirm what is your explanation for this. I wish to include
    this information in the Ombudsman’s report, so please can I have a response
    within the next seven days.

    Please can you also confirm that you are a solicitor.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Fraud Investigator

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Docherty, Andrew [mailto:andrew.docherty@york.gov.uk]
    Sent: mardi 7 décembre 2010 18:14
    To: Fraud Investigator

    Subject: Barbara Hofschroer

    Dear Fraud Investigator,

    Councillor Simpson-Laing has asked me to send you the following message:

    As a Councillor there are limits to how I can intervene in to any Social
    Services case – this is defined by the ‘law of the land’.

    I feel that with the continued nuisance and malicious telephone calls, added
    to the personal attacks which have been sent to me in emails over the last 2
    years, by Mr Hofschroer, that I can no longer be involved in communications
    with yourself.

    I must inform you that I have already had the police involved in this and I
    have, after receiving another call, asked the police to investigate the
    calls I have been receiving from someone connected to this case . I am doing
    so as I have a young child in my house and I do not want them to answer such
    a telephone call.

    In future your emails will not be forwarded to me and can I please ask that
    you direct all future communications to Cath Murray, Andrew Docherty and
    Kersten England.

    Regards

    Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing

    Yours faithfully

    Andy Docherty
    Assistant Director Governance and ICT
    City of York Council
    01904 551004

    *****

    So Mr Docherty, where is the crime no.? Who is the investigating officer? When will CYC comply with its duty of care to a vulnverable person and stop York social woprkers from systematically abusing a vulnerable old, person, as the Ombdusman requested NINE months ago?

    Please do state in public which of the above points are defamatory.

    Please note a Question will be tabled in Parliament shortly asking for a full, independent investigateion into this case. You and your colleagues may well be advised to wait until this investigation has taken place before making any further comments.

    Reply
  28. Peter Hofschröer

     /  23/08/2011

    Oh, and, Mr Docherty, you do not appear to have answered this e-mail yet, dated 23 April 2011. Could you please tell us why?

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: Mrs Barbara Hofschroer
    Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:50:02 +0200
    From: Tim Hicks
    To: ‘Docherty, Andrew’
    CC: ‘Huw Daniel’ , , , ‘Murray, Cath’ , ‘Hodgkiss, Mike’ , , ,

    Dear Mr Docherty,

    I am writing concerning Mrs Barbara Hofschroer, who is eighty two, disabled, ill and stranded in Austria.

    Both Councillors for her area of York (Councillor Simpson-Laing and Councillor Horton) have indicated that they will not take up Mrs Hofschroer’s case and I have not had any response from you or any other officer of York Council to my e mails concerning her case, other than an e mail from yourself to Mr Hofschreor’s solicitor stating that you will not respond to correspondence and will not pass the correspondence on to her Councillors.

    Accordingly, I can only conclude that contrary to the assurances given to me by Councillor Simpson-Laing, stated council policy and the Council’s statutory obligations, you and every official in the City of York Council are refusing to respond to any correspondence on Mrs Hofschroer’s case and have effectively abandoned her.

    If this is not the case, please can you respond by return clarifying your position.

    ****

    What sort of people refuse to protect an 82 year old invalid from serious abuse?

    Any comments, Mr Docherty?

    Reply
  29. Peter Hofschröer

     /  23/08/2011

    Oh, and here’s another one, Mr Docherty:

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: Councillor Horton, Councillor Simpson-Laing and Mrs Barbara Hofschroer
    Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:23:46 +0200
    From: Fraud InvestigatorTo: ‘Docherty, Andrew’
    CC: ‘David Niven’ , ‘Huw Daniel’ , , , ‘Murray, Cath’ , ‘Hodgkiss, Mike’ ,

    Dear Mr Docherty,

    Thank you for your e mail to Mr David Niven.

    To be clear, the issue of substance I am raising is that no one from York Council will respond on the case of Mrs Hofschroer, although they have a statutory duty to do so. Clearly the issues I raise in my e mail to you have not been dealt with by yourself or any Councillor.

    Going forward, it would be helpful if you could make some effort to be honest and truthful in your response to my correspondence.

    Contrary to what you write, the Council has a duty of care to Mrs Hofschroer. It is not down to the individual whim of any councillor if they choose to involve themselves in her case, the Council must face up to its statutory responsibilities.

    Councillor Simpson-Laing has indicated that I should address all correspondence to you, which I have respected. However, I am concerned that since the failed attempt to arrest mrs Hofschroer’s carer Peter Hofschroer on the 16th of January I have not had any response to correspondence from you or anyone else in the City of York Council concerning the welfare of Mrs Barbara Hofschroer, although I have written several times.

    It appears that contrary to what she wrote to me, Councillor Simpson-Laing is in fact refusing to respond to any correspondence on her constituent either directly or via yourself, which is also a grave breach of her duty as a Councillor, particularly as Mrs Hofschroer is an innocent victim of this situation, is disabled, ill, destitute, stranded abroad, the victim of a campaign of harassment by one of her Council’s own social workers, who has defrauded her of her home and thrown out her possessions, has been a member of the Labour Party since 1942 and only wants to die in her own home.

    Given that Councillor Simpson-Laing agreed I could correspond with you, I do not understand why neither yourself nor any other member of York Council will respond to correspondence and would be grateful if you would confirm why this is. Mrs Hofschroer is currently the only UK Citizen in the world that is denied access to a local councillor or the right to correspond with her Council, which is the statutory body that is responsible for her welfare.

    I do not understand why the council will not implement the ombudsman’s recommendations that the case is re-opened immediately because the Council’s original safeguarding investigation was unsatisfactory, please can you also confirm why this is.

    I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

    ****

    So there we have it, Mr Docherty. It seems that you will be described in the House as “dishonest” and “untruthful” by a peer of the realm. I assume these comments will have pride of place on your CV, as I suspect that you might be looking for a new job shortly….

    Reply
    • sharon wilson

       /  23/08/2011

      the organisation is evdiently also dysfunctional-the conduct is contempt-when are these people ever going to mature and act in a professional manner??to ignore the ombudsman recommendations is scandalous to an elderly lady.they should be sacked.and also need some behaviour therapy-this is human life here.pure malice and stubborness.thankgod for the peer and their kindness and of dr sentamu to assist the case and the kindness of realwhitby to help expose wrondoing in society.it is not surprising princes charles has to interfere in the government.

      Reply
  30. Peter Hofschröer

     /  23/08/2011

    And before I forget, Mr Docherty, here’s another e-mail you neglected to answer. I won’t raise issue of duty of care, professionalims and integrity here.

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: City of York Council request to arrest Peter Hofschroer
    Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:13:52 +0200
    From: Fraud Investigator
    To: ‘Docherty, Andrew’ , ‘Murray, Cath’ , ‘Hodgkiss, Mike’ , ,
    CC: “‘Huw Daniel'” , “‘Ellis, David'” , “‘Professional Standards'” , ,

    Dear Mr Hodgkiss,

    Dear Ms England,

    Dear Ms Murray,

    Dear Mr Waller,

    Dear Mr Docherty,

    Mr Huw Daniel’s report into the Hofschroer case was published on Thursday the 9th of December 2010. The Ombudsman’s Report was highly critical of the joint Police and Council investigation into the case which it described as “irregular” and recommended that the entire case be re-opened and re-investigated again “urgently”.

    Detective Inspector Ellis of North Yorkshire Police CID has confirmed that by Tuesday the 14th of December (three working days later), City of York Council and Robert Hofschroer had all made allegations of serious criminal offences including kidnapping and that Peter Hofschroer was holding his mother against her will in Austria and emotional and psychologically abusing Barbara Hofschroer and consequently North Yorkshire Police immediately initiated an international operation to have him arrested in Austria. This request was forwarded to the Austrian State Police by the UK Serious and Organised Crime Agency via Interpol.

    As a result of the Council’s allegations, the Austrian Police initiated an investigation during which Mrs Hofschroer was visited at her residence in Austria, separated from her carer and questioned by armed police. The Austrian police investigation was meticulous and impartial and made the following observations (extract):

    “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).

    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 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. She is certainly not being abused emotionally and / or psychologically and is not being prevented from contacting her relations in the UK.

    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.”

    Mrs Hofschroer is recovering in Austria following surgery recently. She remains very upset over the conduct of your colleague the York Social Worker Robert Hofschroer, who has defrauded her of her home, locked her out of her home while she was on holiday and then tried to sell it, thus making a fraudulent profit of 200,000 GBP. A similar case comes to trial in Austria shortly.

    I would comment that I find it despicable that other than alleging that Mrs Hofschroer has made herself voluntarily homeless, (thus evading your responsibilities to her and evading your duty to investigate and prosecute your fellow Social Worker Robert Hofschroer) and conducting a joint operation with your colleague Robert Hofschroer to have her devoted carer arrested, thus leaving her stranded abroad without any care, you and your colleagues are not prepared to take any interest in the welfare of Mrs Hofschroer for whom you have a duty of care, or even to respond to correspondence about her.

    ***

    So, Mr Docherty, do you really want this material to be read out in a court of law and for the story to get into the national press?

    Now, would that be smart, or would that be dumb?

    Need three guesses, do we?

    Reply
  31. Tom Brown

     /  23/08/2011

    Andy the word deputy appears please don’t act the ‘useful idiot’ You have a line manager. Lets hear from him or her!

    Reply
    • Peter Hofschröer

       /  23/08/2011

      I think that must be the Chief Executive Kersten England. Mum wrote her a personl letter in December 2009 begging her to stop the abuse. It is now September 2011. Mum never got an answer and the abuse has not stopped. She was unlawfully evicted from her home in February 2010 by a York social worker with the full support of Andy Docherty, Cath Murray, Cllr David Horton JP (now Lord Mayor of York) and Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing (portfolio adult social sedrvices).

      Kersten England runs the local authority of a city with a large social services department.

      If she is so callous in her behaviour towards one victim of abuse by York Social Services, then you have to ask how many more there are.

      Reply
  32. sharon wilson

     /  23/08/2011

    liberty informed the social worker chris sunley as did social worker francis hoyle ignore libertys advice.abuse of human rights convention

    Reply
  33. admin

     /  23/08/2011

    Another email from York Council.

    The sections of the article that are objected to are those which state or imply that any Officer or Member of the City of York Council has acted unprofessionally, unethically or committed any act of misconduct or which are in any other way defamatory.

    As the publisher of the article you are, of course, responsible for its contents and you may wish to seek proper professional advice as to your position in respect of allegations made against representatives of the Council and against other parties.

    Kindly confirm that you now intend to remove the offending material.

    regards

    Andy Docherty
    Assistant Director Governance and ICT
    Solicitor
    City of York Council

    Reply
    • admin

       /  23/08/2011

      Our Response

      Hi Andy,

      Thanks for getting in touch with us again. I feel I must refer back to my last email. I am more than happy to work with you in identifying and removing defamatory material found at the link you provided yesterday.

      However to be able to do this I would like to receive a written request, by recorded delivery, on Council Headed Paper (To verify that you are who you say you are). Please send these items to (address removed).

      It would also be useful for you to be more specific regarding which material you wish to have removed from the site. At present there is the original article by Peter Hofschröer and in excess of 60 comments. Real Whitby Magazine operates a policy of Retrospective Moderation and we are willing to work with you to remove illegal content from our site. However we wish to retain legal information on the site as the purpose of our site is to allow freedom of speech within legal boundaries. To do this we need you to be specific about which parts of the article or comments are infringing any laws.

      It would be useful if you could print off the article and highlight the areas of the article and/or comments which you wish to have removed from the site. We will then be in a better position to assist with your request.

      Reply
    • Peter Hofschröer

       /  23/08/2011

      So the Local Government Ombudsman’s criticism of your abuse of my mother should not be mentioned? So IPCC Commissioner Nicholas Long’s call for you to reopen the safeguarding investigation into your abuse of my mother should not be mentioned? So Lord Maginnis should not table a question in the House asking for a full and open investigation into the rampant corruption in York Council and North Yorkshire Constabulary? So the evidence of you making false allegations about me to the Office of the Public Guardian and his rejection of your request for an application to have my powers of attorney for my mother annulled should not be mentioned?

      What is your favourite fruit, Andy? Bananas?

      I’ve got enough evidence to have you arrested and charged with conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and harassment – of an 82 year old invalid.

      Now all I need is an honest cop to arrest you. I have asked Chief Constable Maxwell for access to a police station to do just that.

      Can you please remind him to reply?

      Reply
  34. Peter Hofschröer

     /  23/08/2011

    Oh! And, Andy, what about the e-mails you have written and that have been posted ? They make you look pretty unprofessional, eh? Would you like those deleted as well, or should I post more?

    Abusing little, old ladies on a wheelchair is NOT a nice thing to do. Seriously. Okay, I understand there are people that enjoy doing this. Do you understand that most people find such behaviour repulsive?

    Reply
  35. Peter Hofschröer

     /  24/08/2011

    O! And, er, Andy. If I remember correctly, you are what some call a solicitor, which means you have legal training, right? That means part of your job description is knowing and understanding the law, right?

    Legal opinion I have here is:

    “I do not think that it would be possible for any officers or members of the Council to take action for defamation, unless they did so on their own behalf and at their own expense.

    “In 1993, after Derbyshire County Council tried to sue the ‘Sunday Times’ over critical articles about the administration of its pension fund, the House of Lords ruled, ‘ It is if the highest importance that ….. any governmental body should be open to uninhibited criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech.’

    “Individual officers or Councillors may bring their own claims for libel but they cannot use taxpayers’ money to do so.

    “The legislation dealing with this is The Local Authorities (indemnities for members and officers) Order 2004 which states, ‘No indemnity may be provided under this order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer.’

    “Should any governmental body fund any such action, then they would be acting ultra vires and in this the case, the Councillors could be surcharged for any expenditure involved in any claim.”

    So, er, your threats on behalf of York Council to sue any of the good, honest, upright citziens on this site for defamation would be unlawful, right?

    So, er, would you agree with me that your threats to do so were knowingly designed to cause distress the good, honest, upright citziens on this site?

    Is that not HARASSMENT as defined by the Prevention of Harassment Act, 1997? Is that not a CRIMINAL offence?

    As I am sure you are a law abiding citizen, will you be reporting yourself to the police, or should I?

    Could I please have your professional opinion here as York Council’s salaried solicitor and head of legal? Have you committed a CRIMINAL OFFENCE?

    Reply
  36. Peter Hofschröer

     /  24/08/2011

    Oh! And, er, Andy, not wishing to suggest that you are completely and utterly incompetent and unfit for public service, may I help you save taxpayers money by pointing out the law, so that you do not have to waste your valuable time on something you seem to understand so little?

    Please see:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3082/made

    “Restrictions on indemnities s6.—

    (1) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to any action by, or failure to act by, any member or officer which—
    (a) constitutes a criminal offence; or
    (b) is the result of fraud, or other deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness on the part of that member or officer.

    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) (a), an indemnity may be provided in relation to—
    (a) subject to article 8 below, the defence of any criminal proceedings brought against the officer or member; and
    (b) any civil liability arising as a consequence of any action or failure to act which also constitutes a criminal offence.

    (3) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer but may be provided in relation to the defence by that member of officer of any allegation of defamation made against him.”

    In plain language, any Councillor or Officer may not draw on the public purse to bring a libel action against the author or publisher of an allegedly libellous statement, but may do so to defend against an accusation of libel brought against him/her.

    Right, eh?

    Now may I suggest a way you can help save even more taxpayers money? RESIGN!

    Reply
    • Nigel Ward

       /  24/08/2011

      @ Peter:

      You might want to draw Andy Docherty’s attention to the following statute and precedent citations re ‘ultra vires’ actions by Councils:

      Jones v. Swansea City Council [1989] 3 All ER 162.
      AG v. Westminster City Council [1924] 2 Ch 416, CA.
      LGA 1988 Part 1 and Ch 20 A above.
      Ashbury Railway carriage Company v. Riche [1875] LR 71 HL 653

      Opinion of Cheshire & Fifoot in “Law of Contract” 6th Edn. p 366.

      The long and the short of all that is that if the CYC instigated legal proceedings against yourself (or Real Whitby) on or in behalf of certain Officers and/or Councillors, it would be going beyond its legal powers, as conferred upon it by Act of Parliament – it would be acting ‘ultra vires’.

      Furthermore (as Charles Arnold-Baker rightly points out in his “Local Council Administration”), “the liability falls PERSONALLY upon the Councillors or Officials who authorised it”.

      In short, Andy Docherty is digging a big, big hole for himself. How very gratifying. Look before you leap, Andy.

      Reply
      • Peter Hofschröer

         /  24/08/2011

        No, no, Andy, leap before you look and make sure you take the rest of the gang of granny-abusing criminals in York Guildhall with you!

        What sort of sick pervert abuses an 82 year old invalid? Got a mirror there? Then you can see one.

        Conspiracy to defraud – TEN YEARS

        Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – LIFE

        Couldn’t happen to a nicer person, eh?

  37. Peter Hofschröer

     /  24/08/2011

    Well, er, Andy, do you remember the e-mail I sent you when you first joined York Council? no? Then here it is again:

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: The Abuse of Grandma B – The Role of the City of York Council
    Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:15:01 +0200
    From: Peter Hofschröer
    To: andrew.docherty@york.gov.uk
    CC: ‘Murray, Cath’

    Dear Mr Docherty,

    Welcome to the City of York Council (CYC). Your predecessor Alison
    Lowton tells me that you have been “fully briefed on the circumstances”.
    As she is an officer of CYC, then I doubt very much if she has told you
    the truth. Indeed, I doubt very much if she understands the meaning of
    the word. The fact of the matter is that you are now working for an
    organisation that systematically abuses the vulnerable, whose officers
    regularly commit criminal offences and whose senior management does not
    have a problem with this. If you are a person of integrity, then may I
    suggest you look for employment elsewhere. If you are not, then you have
    found the right job. In CYC, you will be given every opportunity
    possible of abusing the vulnerable and will be allowed to commit
    criminal offences at will.

    I would point out at this stage that it seems the “glory days” might be
    coming to an end and that a number of your colleagues might at last be
    facing prosecution and hopefully get the jail sentences they have done
    so much to deserve. In my career, I’ve worked all over the world. I’ve
    even spent time behind the Iron Curtain, but I’ve not seen corruption to
    the extent I have experienced in the Rotten Borough of York. If you
    think abusing little old ladies on a wheelchair is fun, welcome to the
    club. If you don’t, then please go elsewhere.

    So that you can start to assess the facts yourself, I’ve attached a
    couple of newspaper articles on my parents. The first is about their
    60th wedding anniversary. That took place in October 2008. As you can
    see, Dad was healthy and lively then. However, he urgently needed
    rehousing into sheltered housing. CYC officials blocked that, as a
    favour to my brother, a colleague of yours and an habitual criminal, who
    is psychotic and has a history of violence against family members. The
    reason they blocked this was that as my brother had defrauded my parents
    of their house, a serious criminal offence, then if the house had have
    been sold, capital would have been released over which he would have had
    no control and the estate depleted. Obviously, he would rather kill his
    father off than let that happen, and his pals in Social Services lied
    and falsified the record to help him. That is the sort of criminal you
    are sitting next to.

    Then I’ve attached a copy of the latest draft of the Harassment Diary I
    have been keeping. As you can see, you colleagues have devoted a
    considerable amount of their time to systematically abusing my parents
    and harassing me. They regularly commit criminal offences, with
    impunity, as senior management does not object to such behaviour, so
    part of your job remit will be to lie your head off to cover up for
    them. If you have a problem with that, then you know what I have suggested.

    The latest act of abuse carried out by my brother was to force entry to
    my mother’s house while she was on holiday and change the locks, denying
    her access to her own home. He has threatened to kill her, so until he
    is sectioned and put into secure accommodation, there is no way Mum can
    return home. She has been stuck away from home for months now, causing
    her considerable distress. Your predecessor told me that such an act did
    not constitute abuse and that my mother is not homeless. That is, of
    course, a lie, and the sort of lie you will be required to tell. This is
    just one example of how sick and twisted the minds of your colleagues, a
    gang of granny-abusing criminals, are.

    You will also note that your colleagues find my behaviour objectionable.
    They cannot understand why I am complaining about their systematic abuse
    of an 81 year-old invalid. Their minds are so sick and twisted, they
    think it is their right to abuse the vulnerable, and senior management
    has, so far, given this gang of perverts free reign in doing so. Decent
    people would be horrified by this, but you will not find many of that
    sort in CYC.

    I note things have gone rather quiet in Guildhall since the Ombudsman
    paid his visit to York. If he does his job properly, a number of your
    colleagues should end up where they belong – JAIL.

    Yours sincerely,
    Peter Hofschröer

    ***

    It is taking a little longer than I hoped, but I think you will shortly be a Rule 46 prisoner. Look at it this way. At least you will get a cell to yourself. At least some of the time. 😉

    Reply
  38. Letter to North Yorkshire Police Authority

    Thanks to Frank for writing this. If he gets an answer, we will happily post it.

    From: ‘Frank’

    To: jeremy.holderness@nypa.gov.uk; cllr.jane.kenyon@northyorks.gov.uk
    Subject: Re: Email – 13 August
    Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:53:30 +0100

    Dear Mr Holderness,

    Thank you for your email of August 17th.

    Firstly, I would like to know the reasoning behind Cllr Kenyon’s decision to have you reply on her behalf, especially since my email was directed at the Chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and NOT the Chief Executive. I have copied Cllr Kenyon into this email, in the hope that she might explain this, herself.

    Secondly, I have a few other points I wish to raise, and would appreciate a detailed response to all of them.

    According to one source, Lord Maginnis has seen all the evidence related to the “abuse of Grandma B” case and is so concerned he has raised the matter with the Home Secretary. As she has not properly dealt with the issues, he will shortly be asking a Question in the House. The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    I am aware that David Niven, Head of Litigation at the London solicitors Penningtons, has seen all the evidence and is so concerned he has written to the Chief Constable outlining the evidence of malfeasance in North Yorkshire Police, but has not had the courtesy of a reply. The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    Tim Hicks FCA, the fraud investigator, spent two hours outlining the substantial evidence of endemic corruption in North Yorkshire Police to Superintendent Lisa Winward at Fulford Road Police Station. She cut short the meeting, which was likely to have lasted several more hours, but agreed to continue it at another time. She then appears to have gone back on her word and no evidence of any further meeting is available. The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    And perhaps Mr Holderness, you would kindly produce the evidence supporting the Harassment Warning PC Homburg is supposed to have issued. I am aware that a number of people have asked for sight of the evidence dozens of times over the past two years. The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    Now, if the allegations made are indeed libellous, then why are is no one taking any action? If you do not want to get involved in costly litigation, then why have the North Yorkshire Police Authority and North Yorkshire Police not at least published a rebuttal and posted it on the Real Whitby site, and in the media at large? The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    It has been brought to my attention by a number of individuals that North Yorkshire Police, and the North Yorkshire Police Authority have been offered the opportunity of a line-by-line rebuttal. This opportunity has not been seized upon.

    An interesting point that I have noted is that the Local Government Ombudsman has examined the evidence and, last December, called for the safeguarding investigation into the abuse of Grandma B to be reopened “immediately” because the previous conference had been “irregular” as the police withheld all evidence of crime to prevent the abusers being prosecuted. NYP has evaded all calls to reopen the investigation. The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    IPCC Commissioner Nicholas Long has examined the evidence and has also called for the safeguarding investigation into the abuse of Grandma B to be reopened. North Yorkshire Police appears to have evaded all calls to reopen the investigation, and to do so publicly. The “unfounded” complaints have not been “dealt with”, they have been ignored.*

    Also, why has Grahame Maxwell apparently refused Tim Hicks access to a police station in North Yorkshire to press criminal charges against him, other chief officers, various superintendents, inspectors and constables? This question relates to the allegations made by Richard Bowsher, of which no evidence or rebuttal has been forthcoming from North Yorkshire Police to deny these claims.

    “As you have seen, where there are grounds for actions to be taken against senior police officers, NYPA does not hesitate to do its public duty.”

    Tim Hicks has yet to be given the opportunity to present to remainder of the evidence of endemic corruption in North Yorkshire Police to Superintendent Lisa Winward.

    So, this then brings the logical question: when does the fraud investigator get access to a police station or will the North Yorkshire Police Authority allow him to continue being denied his legal/lawful rights?

    If: “where there are grounds for actions to be taken against senior police officers the NYPA does not hesitate to do its public duty”, then all that needs to be done is accept what IPCC Commissioner Long has suggested, reopen the safeguarding investigation into Grandma B, and see too it that Tim Hicks gets access to a police station to press criminal charges against Grahame Maxwell et al, and let a Court of Law decide if they should be convicted.

    The North Yorkshire Police Authority would then be doing its public duty, wouldn’t it?

    I have also been deeply disturbed by this revelation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8713194/Hundreds-of-police-officers-caught-illegally-accessing-criminal-records-computer.html – Hundreds of police officers caught illegally accessing criminal records computer. Whilst I accept that Police Constables and Officers are human beings, they should be of a calibre that does not foster the attitude of being “above the law” as seems to be the case these days*. Perhaps you could provide the details of how many Constables/Officers at North Yorkshire Police have similarly accessed the Police Databases without proper reason. I would certainly be interested to know.

    Finally, I note at the end of your email that your signature strip indicates that you are “Acting” Chief Executive of Cleveland Police Authority, and that you are also Chief Executive of the North Yorkshire Police Authority. Given that one is investigating the other into alleged corruption, can you tell me how there is absolutely no conflict of interest here please?

    You might well be aware that I am deeply disaffected and unhappy at the large numbers of individuals coming forward with details about the corrupt practices of a growing number of Police constables, and officers. I trust you will respond to this email and the points herein, with all due speed and attention.

    I look forward to your response and thank you for your time.

    In sincerity,

    Francis L. Chalmers

    P.S. Items in BOLD ITALICS ending with an asterisk are my OPINION only, and should not be interpreted in any other way.
    I also reserve the right to forward this and all correspondence to journalists where I believe it to be in the interest of the public to know what is happening with the services and people they pay for.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Subject: Email – 13 August
    Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:23:28 +0100
    From: Jeremy.Holderness@nypa.gov.uk
    To: cydoniamensae@hotmail.co.uk
    CC: cllr.jane.kenyon@northyorks.gov.uk

    Mr Chambers

    I refer to your email of 13 August to Cllr Kenyon, the Chairman of the Authority. Jane has asked me to reply on her behalf..

    If you are referring to the completely unsubstantiated and libellous allegations/statements on the Real Whitby web site – and I assume that you are – then I can assure you that those matters are entirely without foundation. The web site is populated by a number of disaffected individuals who have had unfounded complaints against the police and other agencies dealt with and disposed of. The complainants have no grounds for complaint but they seem not to be able to accept that.

    As you have seen, where there are grounds for actions to be taken against senior police officers, NYPA does not hesitate to do its public duty.

    I hope this allays your concerns.

    Jeremy Holderness

    Chief Executive Acting Chief Executive

    North Yorkshire Police Authority Cleveland Police Authority

    http://www.nypa.gov.uk http://www.clevelandpa.org.uk

    01765641839 01642301653

    Reply
  39. A typical authority add on to any of their emails.

    WARNING

    Any opinions or statements expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily those of North Yorkshire County Council.

    Reply
  40. Peter Hofschröer

     /  25/08/2011

    This latest e-mail from the fraud investigator working for Grandma B to the Local Government Ombdusman is a good summary of how totally and utterly corrupt the City of York Council, its councillors and senior management are.

    I’ve inserted my comments at various points in the e-mail.

    I wonder what Andy Dandy of CYC might say? See you in court or right to silence?

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: FW: Latest allegations made by City of York Council against Peter Hofschroer
    Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:59:34 +0200
    From: Fraud Investigator
    To: ‘Huw Daniel’

    Dear Mr Daniel,

    Thank you for your e mail yesterday, in response, I would ask for the following events are recorded in your report:

    1. Mrs Murray and Councillor Simpson Laing have both written alleging that Mrs Hofschroer has made herself voluntarily homeless and comparing her to people that turn up with young families falsely presenting themselves to councils as homeless. Clearly this was deeply offensive and reduced Mrs Hofschroer to tears. This allegation was obviously made to excuse their colleague Robert Hofschroer’s behaviour in seizing her home and trying to sell it, and provide an excuse not to investigate his actions any further.

    [Comment – Murray is York Council’s “Complaints Officer”, Simpson-Laing’s portfolio is Adult Social Services. The criminal offences they have committed against Grandma B include: Conspiracy to Defraud, Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice and Harassment]

    2. Councillor Simpson-Laing has written to me claiming that she can no longer correspond on the case because she has been the subject of offensive telephone calls from someone connected to the case (presumably Peter or I) and has reported this to the Police. Upon enquiry York Council were unable to confirm the crime number or the name of the investigating CID officer and subsequently my suspicions that there were no telephone calls and no complaint to the police were confirmed by ACC Sue Cross. It therefore appears that Councillor Simpson-Laing has fabricated this allegation of a criminal offence maliciously in order to harass Peter and Barbara Hofschroer, evade her duty to represent Mrs Hofschroer, bring an end to the Council’s involvement in the case and avoid any possibility of further investigation of Robert Hofschroer.

    [Comment – Clearly, Cllr Simpson-Laing is an habitual criminal. Presumably that is why she has been made Deputy Leader of York Labour Party. What sort of person harasses an 82 year-old invalid? Answer – the councillor of the Rotten Borough of York that has the portfolio of Adult Social Services.]

    3. Councillor Horton has written a personally offensive and insulting e mail to Mrs Hofschroer’s representative (me), probably amounting to a criminal offence of harassment within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    [Comment – Cllr David Horton is not just Lord Mayor of York, he is also a JP. Does not that sum up how the Rotten Borough of York is run? An active, habitual criminal is appointed Lord Mayor and JP]

    4. Both Councillors have acknowledged that although they have a duty of care to Mrs Hofschroer they are nevertheless not prepared to represent her any more. Mrs Hofschroer has thus become the only UK resident on the planet that is not represented by a local councillor and both councillors are in fundamental breach of their duty as councillors.

    [Comment – this behaviour amounts to abuse under York Council’s own definition of abuse. So both the Lord Mayor and the councillor with responsibility for Adult Social services are abusers of the elderly.]

    5. Since this correspondence the Council have not responded to correspondence concerning Mrs Hofschroer, which is a gross breach of trust and the Council’s duty of skill and care.

    [Comment – What do you expect from a local authority are utterly corrupt as the City of York Council?]

    6. The Council has also ignored your recommendation to re-convene a safeguarding conference, further confirming its determination to assist Robert Hofschroer by ignoring its duty of skill and care to protect Barbara Hofschroer from him.

    [Ditto.]

    7. As a result of the offensive remarks I have received from both councillors, my solicitor has written to them formally cautioning them as to their future conduct.

    [Comment – So both the Lord Mayor and the councillor responsible for Adult Social Services have been warned about their criminal behaviour. Both still have their posts]

    8. Evidence originating from York Council in the form of an allegation that Peter Hofschroer has made offensive telephone calls and e mails to members of York Council was used by North Yorkshire Police to justify issuing a request through Interpol to the Austrian State Police to arrest Peter Hofschroer. (Please see the e mail below). Peter Hofschroer denied the allegation, cooperated fully with the police and asked for the crime number and the name of the investigating officer, but neither the council or the police would provide this information, because as ACC Cross subsequently confirmed there was no complaint, no crime number and therefore no crime.

    [Comment – we are in the realms of serious, organised crime here. And who are the criminals? Could only be the police, council officers and councillors,eh?]

    9. The harassment warning issued concerning Mr Bednarski has been entered into evidence in Austria in civil proceedings by Martin and Diane Hofschroer to obtain permanent control of Peter Hofschroer’s home. I am sure you will share my concern that Mr Bednarski has made the following allegations in the past:

    9.1. To the Council that Peter Hofschroer assaulted and insulted him which upon investigation turned out to be false and without foundation and which the council had to retract.

    9.2. Of receiving offensive e mails at work from Peter Hofschroer to the police in December 2009, after he left CYC and about five months after you confirmed that all e mail communication had in fact stopped.

    9.3. Neither the Police or Mr Bednarski are able to substantiate this allegation with any evidence and it therefore appears that this is another false allegation by Mr Bednarski.

    9.4. He has also made the same allegation of receiving offensive e mails from Peter Hofschroer to yourself but has been unable to provide evidence to substantiate this very serious of allegation.

    9.5. The offensive literature complained of in the harassment warning transpires to be a leaflet which Peter Hofschreor denies distributing or having seen before and which does not in fact contain offensive remarks about Mr Bednarski within the meaning of the protection from harassment Act. Peter Hofschroer has also asked for an explanation of how Mr Bednarski obtained the alleged leaflet which is believed to be forged and the Police have been unable to provide this information.

    The conclusion is I fear inevitable that Mr Bednarski is an inveterate and habitual liar who is abusing his position as a social worker to corruptly assist his colleague Robert Hofschroer, by ruthlessly pursuing a campaign of harassment against Peter Hofschroer.

    [Comment – Yep, serious, organised crime. What else would one expect from the authorities in North Yorkshire?]

    Clearly this is a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs, but nevertheless, allegations that Peter Hofschroer has sent abusive e mails and made offensive telephone calls to York Council have been entered into evidence in Austria and the harassment warning has been provided to Diane and Martin Hofschroer and also entered into evidence. This can only have been obtained from Mr Bednarski and it appears therefore that Mr Bednarski is acting in common purpose with Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer.

    [Comment. Yep, serious organised crime by social workers against vulnerable, old people]

    The evidence originating from York Council and the Police has apparently swung the case against Peter and I anticipate that he will lose the case on the 15th of September. I fear that an eviction order will follow shortly after that. Obviously this is a cause of great concern and worry for Mrs Hofschroer and I consider that the above lamentable and despicable chain of events is further evidence of the blatant support that Robert Hofschroer has received from his colleagues in York Council in his attempt to defraud Mrs Hofschroer and her carer, and make them homeless.

    [Comment – Prima facie case for conspiracy to defraud. All I need now is the honest cop to arrest them all. Presumably, he lives next door to the honest judge in Newby Wiske].

    I would additionally request that on the basis your draft report repeats the allegation that Mr Bednarski has received offensive e mails and a leaflet from Peter Hofschroer, that you comment that Peter Hofschroer denies this and that Mr Bednarski has not been able to produce any evidence to support his offensive and defamatory allegations.

    I thank you in anticipation of your good offices in these requests.

    From: Fraud Investigator
    Sent: jeudi 7 avril 2011 02:34
    To: 'Huw Daniel'
    Subject: Allegations made by City of York Council resulting in Interpol Operation to arrest Peter Hofschroer

    Dear Mr Daniel,

    As you are aware, I have expressed concerns that all Councillors and employees of the City of York Council have stopped corresponding with myself, Peter Hofschroer and Barbara Hofschroer and have alleged that this was a breach of their duty as Councillors and employees of York Council. This is particularly concerning given that Mrs Hofschroer is 82, disabled, ill, has been defrauded of her home, made homeless and stranded abroad by the actions of their colleague the York Social Worker Robert Hofschroer, although this apparently causes them no concern. It appears that whilst it is prepared to make allegations about myself and her carer Peter Hofschroer, York Council is not prepared to do anything about Mrs Hofschroer’s welfare and are continuing to ignore their duty of care to Mrs Hofschroer.

    New evidence has now arrived from Interpol which has caused me concern and which I wish to bring to your attention.

    In December 2009, Mr Hofschroer received an unsigned and undated harassment warning from Inspector Moreton of the North Yorkshire Police concerning allegations that he had distributed offensive “literature” and e mails to a York Social Worker Mr Mark Bednarski. Mr Hofschroer denies this and the Police have not been able to produce any of these offensive e mails or “literature” to support their allegation. Mr Bednarski had disciplinary action taken against him by York Council for making false allegations of assault and abuse against Peter Hofschroer.

    On the 7th of December 2010 I received an e mail (to be forwarded separately) sent on behalf of Councillor Simpson Laing by the City of York Council’s solicitor, alleging that she had been the recipient of offensive telephone calls from someone connected to the case, stating that she had gone to the Police, and that she had been the subject of personal attacks for the past two years by e mail by Peter Hofschroer. I would point out that Peter Hofschroer has not had e mail correspondence with York Council for about eighteen months, so this seems to be a false allegation by Councillor Simpson-Laing. The e mail asked that all future correspondence was directed to Ms England, Ms Murray or Mr Docherty, which I have complied with.

    Peter Hofschroer and I deny making abusive telephone calls to anyone.

    Councillor Simpson-Laing has previously sent offensive e mail correspondence to Mrs Hofschroer via myself stating that because her colleague the York Social Worker Robert Hofschroer had seized her home and changed the locks, that Mrs Hofschroer had made herself voluntarily homeless and comparing her to “those with young children who often turn up to Councils across the country presenting themselves as homeless”, which was obviously a deeply offensive thing to write and calculated to be insulting and offensive. She has also had Mrs Hofschroer and her son Peter ejected by the Police from a meeting in her ward. I would add that Councillor Simpson-Laing is Labour Councillor and that Mrs Hofschroer has been a member of her party since 1942.

    I then received another e mail within a few hours of Ms Simpson-Laing’s from Councillor David Horton who is the other Labour Party Councilor for Mrs Hofschroer’s ward, which was personally offensive and abusive to me and also accused Peter Hofschroer of abusing his mother Barbara. Councillor Horton also stated that whilst recognizing that Mrs Hofschroer was his constituent and he had a duty to her he would nevertheless not respond to any further correspondence on the case.

    After consideration of both of these e mails, I felt I had no choice but to have both Councillor Horton and Councillor Simpson-Laing cautioned as to their future conduct by my solicitor, because of the offensive nature of their remarks, which were made using Council e mail addresses.

    On the 9th of December 2010 your draft report was issued which criticised York Council and described the joint safeguarding investigation it conducted with the North Yorkshire Police as irregular and called for it to be re-opened and for the entire case to be completely re-considered.

    It appears from the Interpol Report on the request to arrest Peter Hofschroer (dated 14th of December 2010) that at the same time Councillor Simpson-Laing and Councillor Horton made their allegations, their colleague the York Social Worker Robert Hofschroer also made a complaint against Peter Hofschroer repeating the allegations made by Councillor Horton that Peter was abusing his mother and also alleging that Peter had kidnapped Barbara, taken her to Austria and was holding her there against her will.

    I cannot believe that both Councillors suddenly decided to drag up events from eighteen months ago to make a complaint at the same time as Robert Hofschroer went to the Police, within a week of your report being issued. It therefore appears to me that Councillor Simpson-Laing, Councillor Horton and their colleague the York Social Worker Robert Hofschroer were acting in common purpose in a coordinated way to make false allegations of the most despicable kind against Peter Hofschroer with the intent of having him arrested without cause, in response to your report.

    As a result of the allegations by City of York Council, North Yorkshire Police Special Branch initiated a request via the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and Interpol to the Austrian State Police to investigate Peter Hofschroer because he was alleged to have made abusive telephone calls and sent abusive e mails to various members of City of York Council (the allegation made by Councillor Simpson-Laing and Mr Mark Bednarski) and was an abuser (allegations made by Councillor Horton and Robert Hofschroer) and kidnapper (allegation made by Robert Hofschroer) of his mother, and to arrest him in Austria immediately then charge him under Austrian Law, if evidence could be found to substantiate these allegations. This resulted in the Austrian State Police deploying armed Police to conduct an investigation, during which Barbara was separated from her carer Peter in her residence and questioned by an armed policeman. The subsequent Austrian Police investigation identified that the allegations made by Councillor Horton and Robert Hofschroer were not just ridiculous, but blatantly false. The case is about to go to trial in Austria and it is believed that these allegations were made to prevent Peter giving evidence.

    Since the 7th of January Ms Murray, Ms England, Mr Hodgkiss and Mr Docherty have all ignored correspondence, presumably because they were waiting for the arrest of Peter Hofschroer in Austria, to bring the case to an end. Had this request to arrest Peter been successful, this would inevitably resulted in Peter being arrested and remanded in custody pending trial in Austria. The current case in Austria would have failed, Barbara would have had to be placed in care there until she could be repatriated to relatives in the UK being their colleague the York Social Worker Robert Hofschroer, who could then obtain power of attorney over her and her assets.

    Peter Hofschroer has obtained the original Interpol request made by Special Branch for Barbara and Peter Hofschroer to be visited and the Police Report under Austrian Freedom of Information legislation and this has been forwarded to you separately, along with a copy of the findings of the Austrian Police Investigation. I think it would also be helpful if I commented in detail on the following extract (in italics) from the Special Branch request, which was made on behalf of Robert Hofschroer on or about the 14th of December 2010 (my comments are in brackets in blue).

    Peter Hofschroer has from January 2009 prevented Robert (Hofschroer) from having contact with his mother, (This is a falsehood; following the events of January the 3rd 2009 when PC Brocken and PC Crossan both confirmed that Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer abused Mrs Hofschroer on the day that her husband died, Robert Hofschroer has not made any attempt to visit or contact Barbara Hofschroer and has himself prevented his mother from having contact with her great grandchild. Peter Hofschroer has never prevented Robert Hofschroer from contacting his mother, who has had regular contact with Barbara Hofschroer and the Austrian Police investigation confirmed this) in December 2009 Peter took Barbara back to Austria with him (this was on her normal holiday to Austria every six months, which had to be extended because she was taken ill).

    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. (This is misleading and inaccurate. It should state that he has been accused of sending abusive e mails and phone calls. The investigation is not yet complete, Peter has not been given any opportunity of responding to this allegation, he denies making any abusive phone calls to anyone and his computer was stolen and his e mail hacked into by Robert Hofschroer some time ago. I can confirm that Peter has not had any e mail contact with York Council for roughly eighteen months. Further, Councillor Simpson-Laing has written to me with similar allegations and has been formally cautioned by my solicitor about her future conduct. I will forward this letter separately. Despite several requests, North Yorkshire Police will not confirm to myself or to Mr Hofschröer's solicitor if any complaint has been made, who is the investigating officer, if there is any evidence or what the crime number is.)

    Due to his behaviour (presumably a reference to the above unsubstantiated allegation of making abusive phone calls and sending abusive e mails) and the fact that Barbara’s family in York have been unable to make contact with her (This is a falsehood. Barbara’s family in York had regular e mail and written contact with her and made no attempt to telephone or visit. This was confirmed by the Austrian Police investigation, which found they had been in contact with Barbara Hofschroer before and after Robert made the complaint to the Police), there are serious concerns for Barbara Hofschröer’s welfare (This is a falsehood, Robert Hofschroer made no attempt to satisfy himself if anything was wrong, presumably because he had no such fears. He wrote to her on the 22nd of December eight days after the Interpol request indicating that he knew she was well. He has regular contact with Barbara through her solicitor Mr David Niven concerning his changing of the locks on her home thus making her homeless and his attempt to fraudulently sell her home while she is ill abroad). She is 81 years old (Actually 82) and it is not known whether she is being kept in Austria and incommunicado from her family against her will (This is an allegation of kidnapping and holding her against her will, both serious, arrestable and imprisonable offences).

    REQUEST:

    Please request the ASustrian (Austrian) Authorities to conduct a welfare visit to Barbara HOFSCHROER to determine her safety (Criminal: This is an allegation that Barbara is in danger, presumably from Peter) and welfare, as per below.

    It is requested that the Austrian authorities (police) conduct a visit to Hofschröer’s address and interview Barbara Hofschroer, in the absence of Peter Hofschroer, (North Yorkshire Police policy requires that vulnerable witnesses are to be treated with care and by asking police to separate Barbara from her carer and then interview her on her own, Special Branch have contravened this policy) to establish the following:

    1. Is Barbara Hofschroer fit and well, and being adequately cared for? (Welfare: Austrian Police investigation and Doctor’s report confirmed this “concern” was unfounded)

    2. Is her accommodation suitable for her? (Welfare: Austrian Police investigation and Doctor’s report confirmed this “concern” was unfounded. Further, Robert Hofschroer is well aware that the house is suitable because his son Martin has visited it and stayed there twice)

    3. What are her wishes in respect of remaining in Austria with Peter? (Criminal: Austrian Police investigation confirmed Mrs Hofschroer was happy in Peter’s care, wanted to return to the UK in due course and was not being held in Austria against her will. Her Doctor has subsequently confirmed that she is not fit to travel yet and a medical certificate from him to this effect was forwarded to the Police and to you. She is currently recovering from surgery and still unfit to travel)

    4. Her son Robert wishes to be in contact with her, (If that is so, why did he not telephone or visit when she was in the UK? Other than correspondence about selling her home and making her homeless, he has shown no interest in Barbara’s health or welfare for many years.) 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. (Welfare: Austrian Police investigation confirmed this “concern” was false and that contrary to Robert Hofschröer’s allegations to the Police, they had contact and Peter was not isolating her from Robert)

    5. It is believed Peter may be telling her that the authorities in the UK, specifically York City Council and North Yorkshire Police, are conspiring against Peter and her (Speculation unsupported by any evidence . The Austrian Police investigation found this was without foundation)–

    if this is the case it may be the case that she is suffering emotional and psychological abuse and thereby being prevented by Peter from returning to the UK, or from contacting her extended family in the UK. (Criminal: Allegation of abuse and holding her against her will which the Austrian Police investigation and Doctor’s report confirmed this “concern” was unfounded)

    Should the officers speaking to Barbara establish she is being kept in Austria, or incommunicado from her family, against her wishes, appropriate measures should be taken under local law.

    (This is a request to arrest Peter Hofschroer)

    I think this is now the fifth time that false allegations of a criminal offence have been made by City of York Council against Peter Hofschroer arising from accusations made by the corrupt York Social Workers Robert Hofschroer and Mark Bednarski, and York Councillors Tracey-Simpson Laing and David Horton, who is also I understand a Justice of the Peace, all of which have failed because on investigation their allegations have been found to be groundless. It also confirms Peter’s belief that York Council are working in common purpose with Robert Hofschroer and I would be grateful if you would quote this e mail in your report verbatim.

    You quote in your report remarks that there was “big evidence” that Peter Hofschroer was abusing his mother by Mark Bednarski, which he was unable to support with evidence. You also quote Ms Cath Murray making remarks that her fear was the “unknown” abuse, the implication being that Peter was abusing his mother even though again there was no evidence to support these remarks. Councillor Horton has also made allegations of abuse against Peter Hofschroer which he was also unable to substantiate. However, the Austrian Police report (which was in German, translation provided by Peter Hofschroer) refutes the allegations made by York Council and makes the following observations:

    “Barbara Jeannette HOFSCHRÖER lives with her son Peter in a house 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).

    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 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. She is certainly not being abused emotionally and / or psychologically and is not being prevented from contacting her relations in the UK.

    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.”

    This all confirms my own evidence to you that Peter Hofschroer is a good carer of Barbara and she is happy and well cared for in her company. I would be grateful if you would include quote verbatim this e mail in your final report, to refute the deeply offensive and false allegations made by Councillor Horton and his colleagues the York Social Workers Robert Hofschroer and Mark Bednarski.

    Reply
  41. Nigel

     /  26/08/2011

    OPEN LETTER to Andy Docherty – City of York Council legal supremo (almost)

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Nigel
    To: andrew.docherty@york.gov.uk
    Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:41 PM
    Subject: Allegations of libel/FOIA request [OPINION] [2]

    Mr Andy DOCHERTY
    Head of Civic, Democratic & Legal Services – Assistant Director Governance and ICT – City of York Council

    Andy,

    I note with disappointment that you have neither acknowledged nor responded to my Freedom of Information request of 23rd August 2011. Please do so.

    With reference to a related topic, I draw your attention to a posting on the Real Whitby news-blog that may perchance have escaped your notice:

    Richard Ineson
    August 13, 2011 – 8:43 pm

    I do not think that it would be possible for any officers or members of the Council to take action for defamation, unless they did so on their own behalf and at their own expense.

    In 1993, after Derbyshire County Council tried to sue the ‘Sunday Times’ over critical articles about the administration of its pension fund, the House of Lords ruled, ‘It is if the highest importance that ….. any governmental body should be open to uninhibited criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech.’

    Individual officers or Councillors may bring their own claims for libel but they cannot use taxpayers’ money to do so.

    The legislation dealing with this is The Local Authorities (indemnities for members and officers) Order 2004 which states, ‘No indemnity may be provided under this order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer.’

    Should any governmental body fund any such action, then they would be acting ultra vires and in this case, the Councillors could be surcharged for any expenditure involved in any claim.

    In my view, Richard is quite correct:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3082/made

    Restrictions on indemnities 6.—

    (1) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to any action by, or failure to act by, any member or officer which—
    (a) constitutes a criminal offence; or
    (b) is the result of fraud, or other deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness on the part of that member or officer.

    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) (a), an indemnity may be provided in relation to—
    (a) subject to article 8 below, the defence of any criminal proceedings brought against the officer or member; and
    (b) any civil liability arising as a consequence of any action or failure to act which also constitutes a criminal offence.

    (3) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer but may be provided in relation to the defence by that member of officer of any allegation of defamation made against him.

    I am sure you will agree that, in lay language, a Councillor or Officer may not draw on the public purse to bring a libel action against the author or publisher of an allegedly libellous statement, though he/she may do so to defend against an accusation of libel brought against him/her by another party. On this occasion, the latter eventuality is not the case.

    I am privy to your correspondence with Glenn. You may wish to reflect upon that in relation to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and 2007. The reasonable and prudent man would indulge in no hesitation before declaring that it was your intention to intimidate and coerce, by implied threat of legal action, on or in behalf of both Councillors and Officers. You have done so in your capacity as Head of Civic, Democratic & Legal Services; it follows, therefore, that you have done so during salaried time, and therefore at a cost to the public purse.

    You are clearly aware that a Council may exercise only such authority as is vested in it by Act of Parliament. To go beyond such authority is to act ‘ultra vires’. That authority, as we have seen, does not include the right or power to intimidate or coerce or to engage in court action on or in behalf of Councillors or Officers in respect of allegations of defamation (libel).

    Charles Arnold-Baker, that peerless authority on Council conduct, cites the following sources:

    Jones v. Swansea City Council [1989] 3 All ER 162.
    AG v. Westminster City Council [1924] 2 Ch 416, CA.
    LGA 1988 Part 1 and Ch 20 A above.
    Ashbury Railway Carriage Company v. Riche [1875] LR 71 HL 653
    Opinion of Cheshire & Fifoot in “Law of Contract” 6th Edn. p 366.

    Again in layman’s terms, the long and the short of all that is that if the City of York Council were to instigate legal proceedings against Glenn, on or in behalf of certain Officers and/or Councillors, it would be going beyond its powers, as conferred upon it by Act of Parliament – it would be acting ‘ultra vires’.

    And, furthermore (as Charles Arnold-Baker rightly points),
    “the liability falls PERSONALLY upon the Councillors or Officials who authorised it”.
    That would be you, Andy. In my view, the correct way forward would be for you to write to Glenn apologising personally for having overstepped your (and your Council’s) authority, and asking him to consider your previous ‘edicts’ withdrawn. And, of course, to instigate an immediate and thorough-going investigation – a Council has a duty not only to be beyond reproach, but to be seen to be beyond reproach.

    It would seem to me that there is much to recommend this course of action. After all, the material that you allege to be defamatory has now been propagated even more widely – not only on the internet, but in thousands (perhaps by now tens, or even hundreds, of thousands) of emails.

    Thus far, you have succeeded only in creating the popular perception that City of York Council wishes to be known as a Kafkaesque organisation more closely resembling the STASI than the caring Local Authority mythologized on its web-site.

    In fact, I would (and do) go further. I contend that your actions have achieved nothing less than bringing the Council into disrepute. Instead of exercising a duty of care to examine the evidence of these profoundly disturbing and very grave allegations, you have sought to sweep them away from the glare of public scrutiny. Shame on you.

    So I will conclude this email by instructing you to record it as a formal Corporate Complaint against you, personally, Andy Docherty, under the provisions of the Officers and Employees Code of Conduct – which I have not been able to locate on the CYC web-site, but which (I have no doubt) includes the matters of failing to evince respect, and of acting in such a way as to risk bringing the Council into disrepute. Thank you.

    This may be a timely moment to remind you, Andy, that you and I stand in two distinct and separate relationships to one another.

    I am a member of the public; twenty-four hours a day, every day.

    You have two personae:

    1) The position defined by the grandiose sequence of titles listed at the head of this email, and

    2) A human being, a member of the public, Andy Docherty – son, husband, father.

    I have been addressing the former – a paid public servant, who might, perhaps, benefit from the amicable reminder that he is also the latter – a human being. Now, addressing the latter, again in layman’s terms, it’s time to get off your high horse, kiddo.

    Kindest regards,

    Nigel

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Nigel
    To: andrew.docherty@york.gov.uk
    Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:13 AM
    Subject: Allegations of libel

    Mr Andy DOCHERTY – Assistant Director Governance and ICT – City of York Council

    Andy,

    My attention has been drawn to an email purporting to be from you and now appearing on the Real Whitby news-blog. I have copied it below for your convenience of reference. The email arouses conspicuous public interest.

    The content of that email implies that you are in possession of information that you contend is evidential of the fact that the Real Whitby article contains ‘defamatory’ statements. Defamation in written form is known as libel.

    As I am sure you are aware, the DirectGov website offers guidance on the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239

    In particular, I draw your attention to the following excerpt:

    The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any subject you choose. Unless there’s a good reason, the organisation must provide the information within 20 working days. You can also ask for all the personal information they hold on you.

    Under the auspices of the FOIA, please treat this as a formal request to produce all information held by the City of York Council such as provides evidence that all or any of the remarks reproduced on the Real Whitby article that is the subject of your email are untrue.

    You have twenty working days in which to provide that information. meanwhile, I await your acknowledgement of my request accompanied by a designated FOIA number. Thank you.

    For your information, it is my preference to be addressed by my given name – ‘Nigel’ – and I find it deeply offensive to be addressed as ‘Mr Ward’ or ‘Mr Nigel Ward’. You will oblige me by adhering to my stated preference in future correspondence.

    It is accepted ‘best practice’, in the interests of transparency, to include all preceding emails of a given ‘thread’ within the textual body of all subsequent emails on that topic, this giving all parties a convenient overview of the correspondence thus far. I would be obliged if you would adhere to that ‘best practice’ in future correspondence.

    For clarity, and in the interests of transparency, I reserve the right to include members of the press and public as undisclosed recipients in my correspondence, and to publish that correspondence in the media and on the world wide web.

    Yours, with very kind regards,

    Nigel.
    ——————————————————————————–
    “For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture – and it’s called transparency.” – [David Cameron]

    “If councillors and council officers are to be held to account, the press and public need access to the information that will enable them to do it. If town halls want to reduce the amount they spend on responding to freedom of information requests they should consider making the information freely available in the first place. The simple act of throwing open the books, rather than waiting for them to be prised apart by the force of an FOI, might even save a few pounds in the process.” – [Eric Pickles]

    ——————————————————————————–
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: “Docherty, Andrew”
    Date: Aug 22, 2011 4:01pm
    Subject: Notice to remove material from message board
    To: realwhitby@gmail.com
    CC:

    Dear Sir,

    I am writing to give you notice that the message thread which appears here:

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/the-abuse-of-grandma-b-by-peter-hofschroer

    contains defamatory material.. Legally you are treated as being the publisher of this material and will be liable to have proceedings commenced against you unless you remove the thread immediately.

    Please notify me that you have done so. Many thanks.

    Yours faithfully,

    Andy Docherty
    Assistant Director Governance and ICT

    City of York Council
    01904 551004

    Reply
    • So, Andy, if I understand this, you have committed a CRIMINAL offence here? Being a legal boffin, I am sure you can confirm that.

      Not out of character, eh? Do have another look at the e-mail I sent you on 18 April 2010 (above).

      Would you accept that describing you as a “known, active, hardened, habitual criminal” to be fair comment?

      If you don’t, then you could sue (privately) the owner of this blog, a certain 82 year-old, disabled great-grandmother. That would not be out of character either, after all you have conspired to defraud her, conspired to pervert the course of justice, harassed her, etc., etc.

      What goes through your mind when you abuse a helpless, old lady? No, on second thoughts, I don’t want to know. It would probably make me vomit.

      I bet it only took you seconds to fit in with the “culture” of the corrupt City of York Council.

      Reply
  42. Nigel

     /  01/09/2011

    Civic-minded readers of good conscience will be astonished at this latest turn in the Maxwell saga:

    http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9222241.___Surprise____at_police_chief___s_new_contract_bid/

    Quote:

    “Coun Geoff Webber, Liberal Democrat group leader on North Yorkshire County Council, who tabled a motion of no confidence in Mr Maxwell following the disciplinary hearing, said: “He should have resigned. Most people in his position, having had a final warning, having been found guilty of gross misconduct, would have resigned.” ”

    I will be drawing Cllr Webber’s attention to the following:

    http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/corrupt-policing-in-n-yorks-cleveland/3484/853dbc94f03a7f787eb2cab72d79ca3d

    Reply
  43. Please sign this ePetition and send the link on to your mailing lists!

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/15717

    Let’s keep the pressure up!

    Reply
  44. nancy duncan watt

     /  04/09/2011

    speechless with disgust at these corrupt officials , also compleatly horrified at the lack of action taken by this goverment . what country am i living in .

    Reply
    • Nigel

       /  04/09/2011

      @Nancy: You may wish to add your voice to the petition calling for an independent investigation. It is not )you understand) that one expects the petition to achieve the desired result. But it places on the record the disgust that is felt by many at the actions of a privileged few. Sadly, many have told me that they are afraid to sign – they are afraid that their signatures will attract retribution. That alone says a great deal about the nature of our police forces and authorities.

      http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/corrupt-policing-in-n-yorks-cleveland/3484

      Reply
  45. The fraud investigator has just sent this e-mail to Chief Constable Maxwell.

    One has to ask oneself the question why, for nearly four years now, he has declined to investigate any of the serious crimes committed against two elderly people and their carer, despite the overwhelming evidence, and why, instead he has made every possible effort, including through Interpol, to have their carer arrested on the basis of false allegations, for which there was clearly no evidence.

    Is it not clear that Robert Hofschröer, the main abuser, who is employed by York Social Services to “deal” with vulnerable people, when they know him to be violently psychotic, a serial abuser, and an active, habitual criminal, has an inappropriate relationship with senior officials.

    The evidence indicates that Grandma B’s case is the tip of an iceberg and that corrupt officials in N. E. England are running a crime syndicate in which they target isolated, vulnerable people and plunder their assets.

    The officer running the investigation into Cleveland Police is: DCI Franklin-Smith

    If you want to contact him to express your concerns and / or provide information for his investigation, his e-mail address is:

    Alexander.Franklin-Smith@warwickshire.pnn.police.uk

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: FW: Burglary (Crime Number 12110014573) Hofschroer Case (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011)
    Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:39:59 +0200
    From: Fraud Investigator
    To: ‘Drew, Annie’
    CC: ‘Quinn, Cheryl’ , , ‘Ellis, David’ , ‘PHILLIPS, Dave – CCD’ , ‘Cooper, Graham’ , ‘Huw Daniel’ , , ‘Lemon, Ian’ , ‘Julian Sturdy’ , , ‘Winward, Lisa’ , , , ‘Rebecca Reed’ , , ‘Bullock, Sarah’ , , ,

    Dear Chief Constable Maxwell,

    Further to my e mail of the 9th of July 2011 below and another of the 12th of July 2011 to Superintendent Winward, I am writing to raise my concerns over the investigation into the above burglary conducted by your force. Briefly, in my correspondence I alleged that there were three separate offences of theft and burglary on three different dates by Robert Hofschroer as follows:

    1. Based on the evidence of neighbours in the police incident log that they had seen Robert Hofschroer removing Peter and Barbara’s property from their home while she was ill in Austria; it is alleged that Robert Hofschroer stole the property alleged to have been taken in the burglary. This being an offence of theft.

    2. Based on the evidence of the SOCO, photographic evidence from Mrs Hofschroer’s neighbours, photographic evidence from the Bailiff Mr Dodds, correspondence from Mr Robert Hofschroer and my own observations; it is alleged that that when it became clear to Mr Robert Hofschroer that the house would be re-occupied by Mrs Hofschroer he faked the burglary to explain the missing property that in fact he had stolen some months earlier and that he removed the kitchen bolt and left the garage door open to facilitate this.

    3. Based on the evidence of the SOCO and correspondence with Robert Hofschroer the DVD player was not stolen during the burglary; it is therefore alleged that Robert Hofschroer returned to 7hsi mother’s home after the visit by the SOCO and stole his mother’s DVD player and the shelf it sat on, which according to the SOCO were not stolen in the burglary, but were missing when the house was re-possessed. This being an offence of theft.

    Peter and Barbara Hofschroer and I have cooperated completely with the enquiries of Detective Constable Quinn and have now received a letter from Inspector Dyer dated 18 August 2011 in which he confirms the case is closed because: “ ….there is no evidence to support the case that the burglary was committed by Robert Hofschroer…..”. In response I would comment:

    1. No one interviewed the neighbours and allegation 1 above is not commented on at all. It therefore it appears that it was not investigated.

    2. According to the SOCO report the burglar either had a key or the garage door was left open for him and the bolt at the bottom of the door from the garage to the house had been removed to facilitate the burglary. It also appears that the glass in this door was broken from the inside. Clearly there is evidence that the burglary was a fake. I have written to Inspector Dyer asking if Robert Hofschroer has been interviewed and he has not responded. I have therefore concluded that he was not interviewed and that in fact this allegation has not been investigated at all.

    3. Allegation 3 above is not commented on at all and has obviously not been investigated.

    Although there is overwhelming evidence of crime against his mother by Robert Hofschroer, it appears that North Yorkshire Police will not investigate or arrest him, because to do so would confirm that he has been abusing his mother and would also confirm that the entire case has been mishandled.

    I attach fresh evidence from Peter and Barbara Hofschroer concerning the fake burglary and I would be grateful if you would order Superintendent Winward to re-open the investigation and provide a substantive response to these allegations. I would be particularly interested to read Inspector Dyer’s explanation of how a DVD player and a shelf can disappear into thin air.

    Reply
  46. Dylan

     /  16/11/2011

    Blow the Whistle! New route for insiders to unmask fraud and bribery

    This is the heading on the Serious Fraud Office website, I contacted them about my case of massive fraud on the DWP by Housing Associations in Scotland, court cases I have won, letters from the Rent Officers about the fraud, letters from Customs & Excise stating the the VAT I and hundreds of other tenants were charged was illegal, Statements by Advocates at the Rent Assessment Committee detail the fraud. BUT THE SFO STATED THEY HAVE NO REMIT TO INVESTIGATE DWP FRAUD. AND THE DWP FRAUD INVESTIGATION UNIT ADVISES ME THEY HAVE NO POWERS TO INVESTIGATE LANDLORDS. The Police will not do it, The Auditor General in Scotland refused to investigate the fraud, Audit Scotland refuses to investigate the fraud, the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd refused to investigate the fraud, and the next two Lord Advocates refuse to investigate the fraud. The National Audit Office in London who Audit the DWP refuses to investigate this fraud, the House of Commons Select Committee that looks into fraud on Housing Benefit refuses to investigate this. All the Scottish First Ministers since 1997 refuses to do anything, Brown, Blair and Cameron also refuse to have this investigated, the crooks, criminals and fraudsters are all protected at the highest level in the country. Proven in my case.

    Reply
  47. Ian T Hinchey

     /  26/03/2013

    This email was addressed to Eric Pickles and c/c nywy.pcpt@cps.gsi.gov.uk northyork.complaints@cps.gsi.gov.uk enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk pccnorthyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk mconnor@selby.gov.uk programmeofficer@selby.gov.uk nigel.adams.mp@parliament . Copies have been sent to Tim Madwick, Simon Denis, Kayley Scaife, Richard Abbott, Jim Shanks, PCC (Julia Mulligan@ now defunct), all at North Yorks Police several DCLG Public Servants ALL Selby District Councillors, private planners, York Magistrates Court, 5 email addresses at Spawforths Ltd, ALL Selby District Parish Councils, Local and National press and BBC Sky news and my tweets on SElby District Council criminality @ucimup right across government and judiciary – I hit the limit for tweets sent in a day and was stopped tweeting yesterday.

    “But Ian

    How far are you practically?

    Have you managed to get the CPS involved?

    Are the Police investigating?

    Have there been any enquiries by the Police?”

    ————————————————————————

    As you seem to expect me to ‘handle’ the situation, so every other authority is looking for someone else to ‘handle’ the problem, and for the last two years, at least!

    And the problem comes home to Selby District’s honourable Councillors.

    I bumped into ‘Grandma B’ in my researches, absolutely astonishing! GOOGLE IT AND BE ASTONISHED!!

    Police corruption in North Yorkshire is at a level which even Lord Maginnis taking the root problem of corrupt police working with social services and even NHS at the quickest way of ridding the world of seniors to share in their wealth (it is incredible!) to House of Lords has been unable to successfully challenge.

    And it appears this little earner has gone nationwide. How? By ‘word of mouth’? Or is simply that investigations into paying for care home places met to show the opportunity to like-minded mercenary police/social care workers/NHS workers who simultaneously took the opportunity to gain? And right across the Nation? ELSEWHERE, OUTRIGHT MURDER HAS TAKEN PLACE!!!

    No body will regard themselves as capable of cracking the problem Selby District has, if the North Yorkshire Police are involved, especially if Lord Maginnis and the House of Lords can’t touch them – York Magistrates Court refused to pass my indictments onto CPS according to law!

    (One deep into the ‘earner’ is Mr Moreton, ex Grandma Barbara ‘case’, after ‘retiring from ill health’ with pension, of course, ended up regaining his health to run Selby ‘Community Policing’)

    No body or public body is going to get involved after knowledge of what has gone on without it being able to be checked.

    It is down to the untainted councillors as public servants to proactively exercise their duty of care to their electorate by demanding an Extraordinary Meeting, and to begin a process of revelation which might have far reaching national consequences and repercussions eventually.

    I gave you the ‘big picture’ and it seems barely credible to me though evidence abounds.

    North Yorkshire law seems paralysed – the Police Commissioner is running side-shows to avoid involvement.

    And something has to be done soon if the can of worms is not to infect the whole of society IRREPARABLY!

    Reply
    • Thanks for your comments. When this affair started, we were still naive enough to believe we were dealing with a small group of corrupt officials, whose superiors would deal with quickly. That was five years ago. As you mention, raising the case the House of Lords has not stopped the abuse. Every government department and every official we have gone to for help has been obstructive. What causes more concern is the way their brush-offs are phrased the same way, suggesting that they are being guided centrally at a high level.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: