When you say that I should not be accusing police of a crime you gave no reason for saying that.I asked the Chief Inspector why the suspect has not been charged and all I get is "No comment", with no reason given. That is an inadequate professional service, to say the least,and perverts the course of justice.
But how can the case go to court when all the details, including initial advise from Justanswer were published on the net, before I was ever charged with alleged stalking? All the details are still published there to this day.
It is not as if police have failed to investigate. They took a statement from Computer shop manager, and three different statements from the suspect and refuse to tell me why they have not charged the suspect with theft, which in turn would show the Fiscal that I had a legitimate reason for emailing the suspect who in turn alleged I was stalking her.
You say I am "unlikley" to get the police charged over this
Why should it be "unlikley"?, if all the evidence shows that they ignored the theft of the lap top in order to sustain the spurious stalking charge.The police had a motive and an opportunity to frame me for stalking. "Her policeman" was offended that I had lodged a complaint against him alleging that he intimidated me when he threatened to lock me up if I pursued the suspect.What caused the intimidation was not only the locking up threat but his absolute refusal to read my four page statement which recorded the whole background to the issue.
How can this go to court when it has all been exposed on the internet, before I was charged?
I think it is fair to suggest that we both understand how the suspect simply used her stalking allegation to get police assistance to throw me off pursuing the missing £6.5K and the lap top. Trouble here is that Crown have adopted Zero tolerance in Scotland towards "stalking".
Whether "stalking" can be proved in Court or not is not the issue.
The issue here is police refusal to charge suspect with theft of lap top. I have concentrated on lap top because it is something more tangeable than the missing cash which could be attended to if and when suspect charged on lap top. I will look very foolish in Court charged with "stalking" if I have failed to get Police support to the fact that I had a legitimate reason for pursuing the suspect.First response from your team said the Police had not handled the matter properly,and since then matters have gone down hill with Police taking over 8 months to produce a Report refuting my allegations.
The answer is to try and keep the matter out of court and that is why my question to Justanswer has been. How can this go to Court when all the details were published on www brianmacgregor.com a few days before I was ever charged with the alleged offence.
Indeed if it were not for that fact then we should not be able to publish what we have here. When I asked a solicitor that question, a couple of times, on the day I appeared in Court, I was told we would" talk about that later". We never did. When I asked the Police the same question they could not answer, saying solicitors are better paid than they are, I suppose they were saying the police are not so intelligent.
click www.brianmacgregor.com for the bigger picture which now includes evidence that the suspect is being "radicalised",married to a Bosnian Muslim Hip,hop artist, lives in Denmark who supports Hamas and incest marriage on Facebook. When I uncovered this fact two weeks ago all his material was withdrawn from his web pages. Muhammed Hadzi (Scout) Undertheground Denmark. We still have his email address and suspect that he does not know what this wife is getting up to in Scotland.I hope you enjoy my web site.
Why? What is your reason? I am still keen to get your opinion on the fact that so much was published on the net before I was charged and so much more has been added since that time. I am keen to make sure you can be awarded for your service.and keen to publish this on my web site.
Hi Nicola. Thanks for your interest. There seems to have been a very basic misunderstanding here. I did not ask for an opinion on the actual alleged "stalking charge" This is something that would require a few days of court work, but that is what JGM concentrated on. My actual question, which in fact I have had to ask a few times now is:
How can the Crown go forward to Court with the stalking issue when I had published all the details of the matter on my web site www.brianmacgregor.com-before I was ever charged with the alleged offence? Only yesterday did I notice that JGM was the same Solicitor, back in September, that asserted that the Police had not handled my case properly yet here is JGM now asserting that I should not be accusing the police of a crime. If the evidence suggests that they committed a crime then I do not understand why JGM has taken the view that he has done, and failed to qualify that opinion with a reason.
Why does my original simple question remain unanswered?
Why has JGM taken fright and fled the case?
Not interested about return of deposit while we continue to search for the truty. Kind regards Bogbain
Thank you Nicola
.Patience,tolerance and courtesy. The hallmarks of a Highlander, and the truth will out.
Perhaps the fact that I published the issue on the internet before I was ever charged with the alleged offence is rather unique, maybe my question is not that simple, but we still have to deal with the stark facts of the matter. Looking forward to a fresh start. Regards Bogbain
. I ignoredThank you Christina in customer support for offering to find another expert. While I had set out one particular question initially and recorded certain facts of the matter for consideration, perhaps I should now add a bit more colour to the picture. not only were facts recorded by me to the police before I was charged, some other important facts have now been relayed to the police, and ignored. The suspect alleges she contacted me in Feb 2014 in response to an adsvert she alleges I put in my city centre showroom looking for someone to run our Outdoor Activity Centre at Bogbain Farm. Absolute lies. I have now provided police with itemised phone bills which show me in contact with the suspect since Dec 2013. The suspect confided in me with the fact that she had some deep mental illness to the effect that she had been psychoanalysed as being only one point away from being classed as a psychopath. I ignored the comment until a couple of weeks ago I received an email from a former lover of the suspect who said. " She has deep psychological issues, and indeed is an escort girl. (prostitute). She doubled as a prostitute for the Masons and was regularly sent off with them on business trips for their pleasure. She is extremely manipulative and has a high degree of intelligence, a pathological liar like I've never known. She is a narcissist of the highest order with a very troubled mind and has sought lots of professional help to no avail. i would advise everybody to avoid her like the plague" Three other similar emails are now in the hands of the police. The suspect uses at least four different names and clicking one into Google recently we find she is maybe married to a Bosnian muslim. hip, hop artist who lives in Denmark, while the suspect resides in Scotlan. On his Facebook he openly supports Hamas and incest marriage. Following our discovery he has vanished from Facebook.
evidence suggests that the poor suspect is simply a very vulnerable adult who has been radicalised to some degree.
The Metropolitan police have been informed but I am still left in trouble with our local "thin blue line"
The Sun Newspaper is straining at the bit to get going with this item, but first I need some counselling from your experts. I sincerely ***** ***** you can all keep up the good work. On reflection. I suppose JGM is simply being "cautious". Know what I mean?, as Enry might say.
Dear Nicola. We have started, so we must finish. Yes. please keep going.
Hi Nicola. I am quite happy to wait for you to find the right professional, but if you are having trouble finding someone with Scots Law experience I can't see why someone with English law can't attend to my original question. I asked, "how can the Crown go to Court with the allegation when I had published full details on line, and indeed had taken advice from Just answer, before I was ever charged with the alleged offence.
I can't imagine there being any great difference in law regarding the issue. Cheers Bogbain
Why not ask Jo B to help with an answer, just as if the matter was destined for an English court?
Jo B was able to give an answer when I asked about legal aid without any reference to whether the trial would be in England or Scotland.
I never mentioned where this court appearance might be, your expert simply assumed it would be Scotland. Now let us assume it is to be in England and let us start all over again. It is a basic legal principle that we are talking about here. I know you cannot guarantee that Jo B would be able to provide an answer but I find that in life. If you do not ask-you do not get. My question has been in the air now for ten days. First time I raised a question I got an answer and paid for it within one hour.
Thanks Jo C. I anticipated that the suspect who had run away with the £6.5 cash and the new lap top might use an allegation of "stalking" to prevent my pursuit. I spoke to the police station where I was informed that if a woman now says to a man she wants nothing more to do with him and he contacts her twice again then police regard that as stalking. I then made sure that every email that I sent to her had the Subject marked "Pursuit of lap top". I also contacted yourselves where I was told "police have not handled this properly". I published details of the "Just answer"material, along with further details of the matter, on my web site. www brianmacgregor.com. Indeed all the details are still published there. I had lodged a written complaint regarding the intimidation exercised against me by the suspects policeman and a week later he charged me with "stalking". My policeman had failed to contact the suspect over a ten day period, a time in which I understood she was preparing to leave Inverness to live in Edinburgh.
The whole strange saga is published on the net. Police took over 8 months to deal with my complaint and the findings are a total misrepresentation of the facts. When I ask the Chief Inspector why the suspect has not been charged with theft I get "No comment"
Twenty five letters and emails to the police are now marked No reply.
A few letters to the Fiscal resulted in No reply
I suppose you should now check the web site and suggest whether or not this can go to any court. Thank you for your interest.
Well of course I am of the opinion that a false allegation was lodged against me by the suspect who ran away with the cash and the lap top. Compounding the issue was the prejudice exercised against me by the police officer after I had complained about the intimidation that he had exercised against me by refusing to read and act on the four page statement which I had prepared in order to keep the police force informed about events.Leaving aside the merits of the stalking allegation for a moment. Was a grave injustice not being exercised by the police in ignoring the theft angle and concentrating on the stalking allegation?
How can a jury be expected to go into court with open and impartial minds when so much has been published in the public domain?
The fact remains that the information was put there. The information from Just answer was published there and information from Just answer said that the police had not handled things properly.
. The information has featured on the blogs of our local newspaper for the last eight months so there seems little point in a Sheriff asking a jury to not look into the matter after such a great exposure.has taken place.To sit and do nothing until things in front of a jury is not an option, indeed the first lawyer said that I should be more pro-active. We want to keep this out of court if at all possible so what I have been looking for is a sound reason to present to the Fiscal, based on the facts that I have been presenting to Just Answer.
Only lawyers would want issues to go to court..Kind regards Bogbain
The first lawyer gave us a sound reason when he declared that the police had not handled things properly. I don't think you and me could or should argue with that.
By publishing the issue on the net, before being charged, and since charged, must put the Crown in an untenable position.
I am sure that the suspect never expected this to go to court and I know that is the last place on earth that she would want to be. Nobody but lawyers want to go to court. What we need is some legal representation to propose to the Fiscal to drop this sooner than later. I understand that "her policeman" jumped to a conclusion and threatened me and then exercised vengence against me when I complained about his service. I suspect that because of the recent grave blemish on his police service record because of his "dangerous driving" his fellow officers have closed ranks to protect him from my complaint. If this should hit court I am left in a precarious position with the fact that I am alleging I had every right to pursue suspect for cash and lap top, but where is the substance in that if I have to admit that the police have failed to act on my information.
The police are simply perverting the course of justice by doing nothing about the lap top.In view of the facts and argument presented, How can we phrase a representation to the Fiscal suggesting that their action is "not in the public interest" or represents "insufficient evidence"?. Of course this is all destined to be published on the net, as before, so your answer is destined for a "wider audience".
No doubt you have viewed our Kirsty Wark on BBC TV giving folk a hard time.
Like the night she asserted to a Lawyer. "You do not need to be a qualified lawyer to give me one hundred and one reasons for doing nothing." That is what your advice amounts to at the moment..
Do nothing.Let the police pervert the course of justice. Appear in court so that your profession can have a field day making fools of an old farmer and a suspect with mental and relationship problems.
At the moment it seems to be Just Answer that is on trial on the net when you continue to fail to come up with a simple answer to such a simple question.
How can this issue stand scrutiny in court when the whole issue was broadcast on the internet long before the cops jumped to a wrong conclusion. I better print all this off now to be held in evidence at a later date.
You mean. you can't answer. Yes or no?
Whenever a service or goods can not be provided, it is only a matter of common courtisey to give a REASON for such a decision. Only inadequacy, prejudice or ignorance, would dictate any other action.
Now can we please go on?