One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your house,
about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence
of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen. I repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to draw up
her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the two
policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers took
in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation resumed it was
not of any plan to interview either of us regarding an allegation that
was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice by whoever bore false witness against me. Aggravated, I
thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your house,
about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front
door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your house,
about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence
of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen. I
repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to draw up
her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the two
policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers took
in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation resumed it was
not of any plan to interview either of us regarding an allegation that
was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to Pervert the Course of
Justice by whoever bore false witness against me. Aggravated, I
thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
I can't see that any crime has been committed.
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police (don't
name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a pattern of harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil action arising
out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was unable
to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that I was
keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence
of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen. I
repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to draw
up her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the two
policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers took
in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation resumed it
was not of any plan to interview either of us regarding an allegation
that was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to Pervert the
Course of Justice by whoever bore false witness against me.
Aggravated, I thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's
informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
I can't see that any crime has been committed.
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police (don't
name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a pattern of harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil action arising
out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
On 10/02/2025 11:54, The Todal wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The
evidence of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen.
I repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to
draw up her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the
two policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers
took in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation
resumed it was not of any plan to interview either of us regarding an
allegation that was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to
Pervert the Course of Justice by whoever bore false witness against
me. Aggravated, I thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's
informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
I can't see that any crime has been committed.
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police (don't
name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a pattern
of harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil action
arising out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where
the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that
is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that
it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove
that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested.
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:Lucky you - now, back to the subject, Les. How do I get the police to prosecute this?
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at theI had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
unable to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that
I was keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
On 10/02/2025 11:54, The Todal wrote:
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police (don't
name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a pattern of
harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil action arising
out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where
the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that
is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that
it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove
that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested.
On 10/02/2025 14:28, Peter Able wrote:that this is nntp)
On 10/02/2025 11:54, The Todal wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The
evidence of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen.
I repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to
draw up her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the
two policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers
took in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation
resumed it was not of any plan to interview either of us regarding
an allegation that was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to
Pervert the Course of Justice by whoever bore false witness against
me. Aggravated, I thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's
informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
I can't see that any crime has been committed.
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police
(don't name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a
pattern of harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil
action arising out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where
the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all
that is required is that the person making the false allegation
intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not
necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be
arrested.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
An ill-advised comment. Why the need to lower the conversation? (Except
What you seem to be suggesting, which plainly cannot be true, is that if an allegation is made to the police and the police decide not to prosecute,
it must follow that the person who made the allegation is guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Thus, if a neighbour were to tell the police that she believes a child
is being battered in the house next door, and it turns out that the
child is safe and well, your stance is that the neighbour could be
prosecuted for APCJ.
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:Quite frankly, I'd let it go, but keep all the info and should the same
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was
unable to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that
I was keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
Lucky you - now, back to the subject, Les. How do I get the police to prosecute this?
On 10/02/2025 14:31, Peter Able wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was
unable to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being
that I was keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who
made the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They
left quite satisfied!
Lucky you - now, back to the subject, Les. How do I get the police to
prosecute this?
Quite frankly, I'd let it go, but keep all the info and should the same happen again - then raise Cain.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:28:30 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:54, The Todal wrote:
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police (don't
name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a pattern of
harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil action arising
out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where
the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that
is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that
it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove
that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested.
The various offences of perverting the course of justice require mens rea. That is, the person making the false accusation must know that it is false, and must intend that the police take the accusation seriously. It is not a crime to be mistaken, and nor is it a crime if a person makes a false accusation on the expectation that it will simply be dismissed out of hand.
Anyway, to answer your question, you can't get the police to prosecute it, not least because the police don't prosecute, the CPS do. If your complaint is that the police aren't investigating the false allegation as a potential attempt to pervert the course of justice, then you need to provide them with evidence which supports your belief that the knew it was false and was ntending at least some harm to come to you as a result.
will need to be more than your mere opinion, I'm not sure that I have given any of my opinions - so far.
course of action by a known individual or individuals would be a good start. The police surely know this by the nature of the allegation made to themand the "authority" of the alleger?
Mark
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your house,
about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence
of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen. I repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to draw up
her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the two
policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers took
in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation resumed it was
not of any plan to interview either of us regarding an allegation that
was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice by whoever bore false witness against me. Aggravated, I
thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
-
PA
--
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front door. I
opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We want to interview
you, individually and at opposite ends of your house, about an allegation that you have
assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence of the assault
is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
On 10/02/2025 16:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
Showing that it is part of a
course of action by a known individual or individuals would be a good start. >> The police surely know this by the nature of the allegation made to them >and the "authority" of the alleger?
Keep going, please, Mark. I appreciate your lawyer's tone and have
responded appropriately seriously, I hope.
On 10/02/2025 17:59, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:31, Peter Able wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>>>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was
unable to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being
that I was keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who
made the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They
left quite satisfied!
Lucky you - now, back to the subject, Les. How do I get the police to
prosecute this?
Quite frankly, I'd let it go, but keep all the info and should the same
happen again - then raise Cain.
They say madness is repeating the same process exactly and expecting a different outcome.. I'm trying to raise Cain <Kudos for getting the
spelling right> now, Les.
I was warned that the police wouldn't take interest in a case of which
this episode is just 4 days in a 22 year rolling scandal. I didn't
expect their total disinterest.
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was unable
to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that I was
keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was unable
to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that I was
keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
I too had a similar experience. One evening there was a knock at the
door. Two policemen who had ostensibly come to warn us about burglars 'casing the joint' (I've always wanted to write that). I invited them
in, my wife was there and we briefly discussed the matter. Strangely,
when asked what the alleged miscreants looked like, they both answered
at the same time with different description, specifically skin colour.
On 10/02/2025 14:44, The Todal wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:28, Peter Able wrote:that this is nntp)
On 10/02/2025 11:54, The Todal wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " >>>>> We want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The
evidence of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen.
I repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to
draw up her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the
two policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers
took in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation
resumed it was not of any plan to interview either of us regarding
an allegation that was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to
Pervert the Course of Justice by whoever bore false witness against
me. Aggravated, I thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's
informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
I can't see that any crime has been committed.
If you are sure you know who gave the information to the police
(don't name that person here) and if you could show it is part of a
pattern of harassment, then there might be a crime and/or a civil
action arising out of harassment.
Otherwise, it could be mistaken identity or a suspicion based on
something your wife might have said to someone else which was
misinterpreted in some way.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that
where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made,
all that is required is that the person making the false allegation
intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not
necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually
be arrested.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
An ill-advised comment. Why the need to lower the conversation? (Except
What you seem to be suggesting, which plainly cannot be true, is thatFaulty, reverse, logic - and a misrepresentation of my words, I suggest.
if an allegation is made to the police and the police decide not to
prosecute, it must follow that the person who made the allegation is
guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The act of APCJ is not affected by the police decision.
Thus, if a neighbour were to tell the police that she believes a childThe circumstances couldn't be more different.
is being battered in the house next door, and it turns out that the
child is safe and well, your stance is that the neighbour could be
prosecuted for APCJ.
The police would deal very differently with a typical member of the
public's concerns, and a care professional making an allegation that he/
she had directly observed particular evidence of assault.
Let's keep this polite and fact- rather than assumption-based, please.
This allegation was made by a care professional.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:59:34 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 16:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
Showing that it is part of a
course of action by a known individual or individuals would be a good start.and the "authority" of the alleger?
The police surely know this by the nature of the allegation made to them
Keep going, please, Mark. I appreciate your lawyer's tone and have
responded appropriately seriously, I hope.
Well, let's start with a few questions:
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the
police?
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
3. What evidence do you have that they expected their false report to be
taken seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand?
On 2025-02-10, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 17:59, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:31, Peter Able wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the >>>>>> front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>>>>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was
unable to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being
that I was keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who
made the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They >>>>> left quite satisfied!
Lucky you - now, back to the subject, Les. How do I get the police to
prosecute this?
Quite frankly, I'd let it go, but keep all the info and should the same
happen again - then raise Cain.
They say madness is repeating the same process exactly and expecting a
different outcome.. I'm trying to raise Cain <Kudos for getting the
spelling right> now, Les.
I was warned that the police wouldn't take interest in a case of which
this episode is just 4 days in a 22 year rolling scandal. I didn't
expect their total disinterest.
It sounds like there is a great deal of background here which you are
not providing, or are doing so only in dribs and drabs. You can't
expect useful answers based on partial information. But please don't
post anything which could identify any of the parties involved.
But do bear in mind that just because you may feel grievously wronged
- even if entirely rightfully so - doesn't mean that the criminal law
will necessarily provide you any redress, much less the police will
help you out with it.
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:I too had a similar experience. One evening there was a knock at the door. Two policemen who had ostensibly come to warn us about burglars 'casing the joint' (I've always wanted to write that). I invited them
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was
unable to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that
I was keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
in, my wife was there and we briefly discussed the matter. Strangely,
when asked what the alleged miscreants looked like, they both answered
at the same time with different description, specifically skin colour.
Anyway, they went on their way after sitting outside in their car for a while. I took the next day off and fitted an alarm system.
Some months later the woman next door revealed that her partner had had
some sort of breakdown, and had reported to the police that he'd seen me drowning my wife in the kitchen sink. The police had been next door
where she'd tried to explain, but it seems they had to check.
Sadly, we heard much later that the by now former next door man had
since drowned.
To paraphrase Hanlon, "Never attribute to malice that which is
adequately explained by mental health issues."
On 2025-02-10, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 14:14, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 10/02/2025 11:49, Peter Able wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the
front door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We >>>> want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your
house, about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I had a similar experience some years back, when my late wife was unable >>> to leave her bed and I was her carer. The accusation being that I was
keeping my wife locked up and under duress!
Having led the constables in to meet my wife, it was clear that the
accusation was nonsense. One of the officers actually told me who made
the accusation - a known alcoholic who lived down the road. They left
quite satisfied!
I too had a similar experience. One evening there was a knock at the
door. Two policemen who had ostensibly come to warn us about burglars
'casing the joint' (I've always wanted to write that). I invited them
in, my wife was there and we briefly discussed the matter. Strangely,
when asked what the alleged miscreants looked like, they both answered
at the same time with different description, specifically skin colour.
In my limited experience of being stopped while driving, there's always
two officers, and they will always contradict each other as to why you've been stopped.
It's a mystery to me as to how people who lie for a living aren't better
at it.
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front
door. I opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We
want to interview you, individually and at opposite ends of your house,
about an allegation that you have assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence
of the assault is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
You'd better come in, I said and they followed me into our kitchen. I
repeated the conversation to my wife. My wife's reaction was to draw up
her cardigan sleeves and show her hands and forearms to the two
policemen - first palms up and then palms down.
Immaculate. No cuts; no bruises; no abrasions; no swellings; no
reddening. Nothing. The conversation paused whilst the officers took
in the evidence of their own eyes. When the conversation resumed it was
not of any plan to interview either of us regarding an allegation that
was clearly, I thought, an Aggravated Attempt to Pervert the Course of
Justice by whoever bore false witness against me. Aggravated, I
thought, as a clear lie was given by the police's informant.
The police are refusing to prosecute. Surely a crime has been
committed? If not APCJ, then what?
How do I get this resolved?
-
PA
--
Try Malicious Comms Act.
Someone made a communication with the intention it would cause you
distress.
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:vocp4s$16697$1@dont-email.me...
One day our kitchen-table supper was interrupted by a knock at the front door. I
opened it and there were two uniformed policemen.
"Are you Mister Peter Able?" Yes "Is Mrs Able at home?" Yes " We want to interview
you, individually and at opposite ends of your house, about an allegation that you have
assaulted your wife."
I was stunned. The policeman who had been speaking added "The evidence of the assault
is the state of Mrs Able's hands".
In older people, with circulation problems*, the backs of the hands especially can
sometimes appear to be blue which would otherwise be evidence of bruising. This condition can rectify itself within minutes with changes in posture and/or
in ambient/local temperature
This fact might not have been be apparent to a younger or inexperienced person
on first seeing your wife's hands; hence their possible mistake.
bb
* Not even "problems* as such. But circulation to the extremities simply becomes more problematic with age.
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:vodeq8$1al3g$1@dont-email.me...
This allegation was made by a care professional.
Given your evident unwillingness to supply more information, I
believe any reasonable person could interpret your reference
to a "care professional" there, in the following way
A possibly relatively inexperienced temporary care worker,
recruited from an agency, as are many apparently, by cash
strapped Local Councils* so as to fulfil their statutory
obligation to provide care in the community. Who because
of their possible inexperience will have been instructed
by their Council supervisors to report back any circumstances
*they* might think worthy of comment. Possible temporary
and totally benign discoloration of your wife's hands in
this particular instance maybe ?.
This is simply so as to cover the Councils back.
Quite possibly half the point of employing carers from the
Councils point of view, is so that they can keep an eye
out on clients for whom they may be found to hold
ultimate responsibility in the event of something
going wrong
Were the Council able to afford to employ full time carers
who were able to establish a long term rapport with
their clients, then situations such as this should never
arise in the first place
And then because the Council who bear ultimate responsibility
simply don't have the staff or resources to follow up all
such concerns themselves they will have simply passed the
matter over to the police
For instance, this was not an employee/contractor to/agent of any council, invalidating
all of your speculative rant.
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely?
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the
police?
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the >> time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?The state of my wife's hands as seen by the police. There could not
have been the alleged evidence of assault only the day before and it
then all have vanished by the next day.
3. What evidence do you have that they expected their false report to be
taken seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand?
When a care professional makes such an egregious allegation, they will
expect the police to take it seriously. Again, though, the police are
the source of best evidence of this.
A bit of context. At that time my wife was quite disabled and as a
result we lived a very isolated existence, our visitors being either
care professionals or post / parcel delivery staff. The day (afternoon) >before the police visit there was a visit from a care professional which
was rather disturbing in its nature - but which made total sense after
that doorstep, bombshell conversation with the police.
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:vof8bg$1nbl3$7@dont-email.me...
For instance, this was not an employee/contractor to/agent of any council, invalidating
all of your speculative rant.
My apologies.
I can now see the source of your difficulties.
And so can only wish you the best of luck in your efforts to solve them.
bb
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely?
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the >>> police?
Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous. Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the >>> time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
The state of my wife's hands as seen by the police. There could not
have been the alleged evidence of assault only the day before and it
then all have vanished by the next day.
How do you know that they weren't getting your wife confused with someone else? Or mistaking other symptoms for signs of assault?
3. What evidence do you have that they expected their false report to be >>> taken seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand?
When a care professional makes such an egregious allegation, they will
expect the police to take it seriously. Again, though, the police are
the source of best evidence of this.
How certain are you that it was a care professional who made the
allegations?
A bit of context. At that time my wife was quite disabled and as a
result we lived a very isolated existence, our visitors being either
care professionals or post / parcel delivery staff. The day (afternoon)
before the police visit there was a visit from a care professional which
was rather disturbing in its nature - but which made total sense after
that doorstep, bombshell conversation with the police.
If you think that the care professional was the source of the allegations, then your first course of action is to take it up with the care provider.
Ask for copies of reports following the visit (which you, or, rather, your wife, are entitled to see). See if there is any mention in them of symptoms which could be mistaken for signs of abuse. If you found the visit disturbing, then you also need to take that up with the care provider.
But rather than jumping straight in with accusations of criminality, you might want to start by considering that it is a cock-up rather than conspiracy. If the care professional's notes don't mention any signs of assault, or any symptoms which could be confused with signs of assault, then this supports the theory that it could have been an error of mistaken identity - the care professional intended to report someone else, but mistyped and put your name down instead. Or got your wife's notes confused with someone else's, maybe with a similar name. Or, if the notes do mention signs of possible abuse, then you can query that and ask whether the person who visited your wife was qualified to make that assessment.
Remember, for this to be an offence, the person who made the allegation has to deliberately and knowingly telling a lie. Not merely being mistaken or inept. If you are concerned that a care professional was the source of the allegation, then simple incompetance seems to me to be a far more plausible explanation. And that's a very good reason to take it up with the care provider and make sure that the person responsible is investigated and, if necessary, disciplined.
But it's not a police matter. You need to rule out incompetance first - or, at least, have reasonable grounds to believe it was malice rather than incompetance - before you can realistically expect the police to get involved.
You've said in a parallel reply that the care professional wasn't employed
or contracted by the council. That's a little unfortunate, because it means that your councillor(s) are unlikely to be able to help. But an NHS employee or agency staff could just as easily have made similar errors. So could someone working for a private healthcare service. If it's the NHS, then whichever NHS organisational unit they were working for (GP surgery,
hospital outpatients department, specialist clinic, etc) is your first port of call. If you don't get a satisfactory explanation from them, then you could ask your MP to intervene.
Whatever you do next, though, you need to start from the position that incompetance is the most likely explanation. Because it is. It is vastly
more likely to be error rather than malice. I am a councillor, I have dealt with situations where council-employed care staff have got it wrong. I have never come across a scenario where a care professional deliberately set out to give knowingly false information about a client. But I've come across far more cases than I would like where they have screwed up.
Whatever you do, though, don't go in all guns blazing with accusations of malice. Don't even go in all guns blazing with acccusations of incompetance. Let them reach that conclusion. Start with simple, non-loaded questions.
It's OK to suggest that a mistake has been made, but don't, initially
suggest wrongdoing on the part of the person who made the mistake.
Dear [head of department],
My wife recently received a visit from [care professional] regarding
her ongoing condition. The following day, we were visited by the police
who informed us that an allegation had been made that I was abusing
my wife.
Fortunately, we were able to demonstrate to the police's satisfaction
that no abuse had taken place. However, I am concerned that this
allegation may have been due to incorrect information placed on my
wife's file by [care professional].
Please could you, therefore, provide me with a copy of the notes placed
on my wife's file following the visit by [care professional]. I enclose
a separate letter from my wife authorising you to release this information
to me.
I would also appreciate your confirmation that the police were, or, as the
case may be, were not contacted by any member of your department in regard
to my wife.
Yours sincerely
Mr P Able
Reword that as necessary, and fill in the blanks, then email or write to the relevant person at your wife's care provider, and see what happens next. But above all, keep it simple, keep it non-accusatory, keep it reasonable, and just focus on expressing your concern.
Mark
Thus, if a neighbour were to tell the police that she believes a child
is being battered in the house next door, and it turns out that the
child is safe and well, your stance is that the neighbour could be
prosecuted for APCJ.
On 10/02/2025 14:44, The Todal wrote:
Thus, if a neighbour were to tell the police that she believes a child is being
battered in the house next door, and it turns out that the child is safe and well,
your stance is that the neighbour could be prosecuted for APCJ.
If the neighbour says they saw bruises on the child's arms then unless they can be
explained away in terms of dirt or other colouring, I would say, yes they should be
prosecuted if this was a pack of lies.
The issue is the police aren't willing to understand the basis or background to the
original complaint and how they got it so wrong.
On 10/02/2025 14:44, The Todal wrote:
Thus, if a neighbour were to tell the police that she believes a child
is being battered in the house next door, and it turns out that the
child is safe and well, your stance is that the neighbour could be
prosecuted for APCJ.
If the neighbour says they saw bruises on the child's arms then unless
they can be explained away in terms of dirt or other colouring, I would
say, yes they should be prosecuted if this was a pack of lies.
The issue is the police aren't willing to understand the basis or
background to the original complaint and how they got it so wrong.
On 11/02/2025 12:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:* I don't know who, literally "made the allegation to the police" in
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous. >> Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely? >>
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the >>>> police?
knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here.
that I cannot possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone else in
the their organisation "made the allegation to the police". The police
do, though.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
because, less than 30 hours after the allegation was made it was shown
to be false in front of two police officers. Isn't this what is meant
by a "duty of care"?
I don't.The state of my wife's hands as seen by the police. There could not
have been the alleged evidence of assault only the day before and it
then all have vanished by the next day.
How do you know that they weren't getting your wife confused with someone
else? Or mistaking other symptoms for signs of assault?
Once again, what are the police for if not to investigate?
**I did, incidentally call a senior member of the organisation's staff
who had detailed experience of my wife and myself and described the
police visit to our home and then asked them to investigate a) if it was >someone in their organisation who made the allegation, and )b if it was,
what they could do to withdraw that allegation. They never responded.
Ask for copies of reports following the visit (which you, or, rather, your >> wife, are entitled to see). See if there is any mention in them of symptoms >> which could be mistaken for signs of abuse. If you found the visitI'll make a Subject Access Request?
disturbing, then you also need to take that up with the care provider.
Remember, for this to be an offence, the person who made the allegation has >> to deliberately and knowingly telling a lie. Not merely being mistaken or
inept. If you are concerned that a care professional was the source of the >> allegation, then simple incompetance seems to me to be a far more plausible >> explanation. And that's a very good reason to take it up with the care
provider and make sure that the person responsible is investigated and, if >> necessary, disciplined.
Well, as explained above, I did, in the least accusatory way that I
could. And they didn't respond.
But it's not a police matter. You need to rule out incompetance first - or, >> at least, have reasonable grounds to believe it was malice rather than
incompetance - before you can realistically expect the police to get
involved.
So the police act within 24 hours of an allegation against me, but I
have to do all of the police's work regarding my allegation? Doesn't
seem right - particularly as the police have far more evidence already
than I.
OK. BTW I sent an SAR to the police regarding their visit. It took too
long for them to reply and what they sent was just scrappy phrases
spread over a page of A4 - a bit like those ransom notes in old TV Cops >series. At one point it describes the home environment as SAFE and in >another it says "No Domestic" - which the same Police Force translated
as "No evidence of past, present or likelihood of future physical or
mental abuse or of coercion.
On 11/02/2025 12:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:* I don't know who, literally "made the allegation to the police" in that I cannot
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous. >> Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely? >>
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the >>>> police?
knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here.
possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone else in the their organisation "made
the allegation to the police". The police do, though.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
because, less than 30 hours after the allegation was made it was shown to be false in
front of two police officers. Isn't this what is meant by a "duty of care"?
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:vofqih$1r06t$2@dont-email.me...
On 11/02/2025 12:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:* I don't know who, literally "made the allegation to the police" in that I cannot
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous. >>> Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely? >>>
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the >>>>> police?
knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here.
possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone else in the their organisation "made
the allegation to the police". The police do, though.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
because, less than 30 hours after the allegation was made it was shown to be false in
front of two police officers. Isn't this what is meant by a "duty of care"?
But If, as you say, you cannot possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone
else in their organisation "made the allegation to the police", then how can you be so certain that the allegation was made less than 30 hours before
the visit of the two police officers ?
Why for instance could the allegation not have been made say 3 or 4 days
ago, or only 8 hours previously for that matter, by someone else entirely ? Someone who hadn't even visited your house recently, if at all ?
In other words, where does the "less than 30 hours" come from ?
On 12/02/2025 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:vofqih$1r06t$2@dont-email.me...
On 11/02/2025 12:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote: >>>>* I don't know who, literally "made the allegation to the police" in that I cannot
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely?
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the >>>>>> police?
Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous.
Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of >>>> knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here.
possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone else in the their organisation "made
the allegation to the police". The police do, though.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
because, less than 30 hours after the allegation was made it was shown to be false in
front of two police officers. Isn't this what is meant by a "duty of care"?
But If, as you say, you cannot possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone
else in their organisation "made the allegation to the police", then how can >> you be so certain that the allegation was made less than 30 hours before
the visit of the two police officers ?
Why for instance could the allegation not have been made say 3 or 4 days
ago, or only 8 hours previously for that matter, by someone else entirely ? >> Someone who hadn't even visited your house recently, if at all ?
In other words, where does the "less than 30 hours" come from ?
The Police made it clear that their unannounced swoop was an immediate response to a
serious allegation. Is that enough for you?
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:32:32 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 12:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:* I don't know who, literally "made the allegation to the police" in
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous. >>> Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely? >>>
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the >>>>> police?
knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here.
that I cannot possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone else in
the their organisation "made the allegation to the police". The police
do, though.
Right. And unless and until you do know the identity of the person who contacted the police, you cannot possibly be certain that it was malicious. You have to start from the premise that it is more likely to be error.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
because, less than 30 hours after the allegation was made it was shown
to be false in front of two police officers. Isn't this what is meant
by a "duty of care"?
That is a total non sequitur.
I don't.The state of my wife's hands as seen by the police. There could not
have been the alleged evidence of assault only the day before and it
then all have vanished by the next day.
How do you know that they weren't getting your wife confused with someone >>> else? Or mistaking other symptoms for signs of assault?
Right. So you need to investigate that possibility first, and eliminate it, before making allegations of criminal conduct.
Once again, what are the police for if not to investigate?
**I did, incidentally call a senior member of the organisation's staff
who had detailed experience of my wife and myself and described the
police visit to our home and then asked them to investigate a) if it was
someone in their organisation who made the allegation, and )b if it was,
what they could do to withdraw that allegation. They never responded.
Then go back to that. Make that request in writing. Make sure get an acknowledgement of the request. Follow it up if you do not get a response within a reasonable timescale.
Ask for copies of reports following the visit (which you, or, rather, your >>> wife, are entitled to see). See if there is any mention in them of symptoms >>> which could be mistaken for signs of abuse. If you found the visitI'll make a Subject Access Request?
disturbing, then you also need to take that up with the care provider.
If necessary, yes, although if there are other documented procedures then it might be more fruitful to follow them.
Remember, for this to be an offence, the person who made the allegation has >>> to deliberately and knowingly telling a lie. Not merely being mistaken or >>> inept. If you are concerned that a care professional was the source of the >>> allegation, then simple incompetance seems to me to be a far more plausible >>> explanation. And that's a very good reason to take it up with the care
provider and make sure that the person responsible is investigated and, if >>> necessary, disciplined.
Well, as explained above, I did, in the least accusatory way that I
could. And they didn't respond.
Then you need to get a response before you can draw any conclusions.
But it's not a police matter. You need to rule out incompetance first - or, >>> at least, have reasonable grounds to believe it was malice rather than
incompetance - before you can realistically expect the police to get
involved.
So the police act within 24 hours of an allegation against me, but I
have to do all of the police's work regarding my allegation? Doesn't
seem right - particularly as the police have far more evidence already
than I.
The point is that you don't, yet, have any evidence that there is anything other than incompetance at work here. And yes, you do need to make that particular effort to investigate that yourself.
The two alleged crimes are not the same. Assault is a much more serious, and much more time-sensitive matter.
OK. BTW I sent an SAR to the police regarding their visit. It took too
long for them to reply and what they sent was just scrappy phrases
spread over a page of A4 - a bit like those ransom notes in old TV Cops
series. At one point it describes the home environment as SAFE and in
another it says "No Domestic" - which the same Police Force translated
as "No evidence of past, present or likelihood of future physical or
mental abuse or of coercion.
The police won't tell you anything useful. They have significant exemptions from FOI and SAR, and they are perfectly entitled to withhold the identity
of the source of the allegation. You need to track that down via other
means.
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:voi870$2bfpt$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/02/2025 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Peter Able" <stuck@home.com> wrote in message news:vofqih$1r06t$2@dont-email.me...
On 11/02/2025 12:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:34:12 +0000, Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote: >>>>>* I don't know who, literally "made the allegation to the police" in that I cannot
On 10/02/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, let's start with a few questions:The police do - and their's will be the best evidence of identity, surely?
1. Do you know the identity of the person who made the allegation to the
police?
Well, if you don't, then the rest of my questions are somewhat superfluous.
Without knowing who made the allegation, you have absolutely no way of >>>>> knowing why they made it. And it's the "why" which is important here. >>>>>
possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone else in the their organisation "made
the allegation to the police". The police do, though.
2. What evidence do you have that they knew the allegation was false at the
time they made it (as opposed to merely being mistaken in some way)?
because, less than 30 hours after the allegation was made it was shown to be false in
front of two police officers. Isn't this what is meant by a "duty of care"?
But If, as you say, you cannot possibly know if Visitor A, Visitor B or someone
else in their organisation "made the allegation to the police", then how can
you be so certain that the allegation was made less than 30 hours before >>> the visit of the two police officers ?
Why for instance could the allegation not have been made say 3 or 4 days >>> ago, or only 8 hours previously for that matter, by someone else entirely ? >>> Someone who hadn't even visited your house recently, if at all ?
In other words, where does the "less than 30 hours" come from ?
The Police made it clear that their unannounced swoop was an immediate response to a
serious allegation. Is that enough for you?
Well... If the Police said they were making an *immediate response* to a *serious allegation* then I'd expecrt that allegation to have been made
only hours ago..
I'm simply wondering where the "less than 30 hours" figure came from,
that's all.
However, as I see little merit in pursuing the point, that will be a "yes".
bb
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:47:30 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |