I thought this would be a good time to write a post on the legalities relating to my situation, and expose the part Humberside police played in the manufacturing of false charges.
In summer 2016 I was summoned to Hull magistrates Court, initially on a section 5 public order offence, which was adjourned so that a further offence of harassment could be manufactured.
The information contained in this blog can be found on the CPS website, ICO website, and most English dictionaries.
Let's start with the section 5 public order summons. This was served on me after I stuck my middle finger up at my neighbours upstairs window, while on my driveway in an empty deserted street, when I suspected she was spying on me from her upstairs window.
In February 2014, 2 years before I was summonsed, my action ceased to be included in a section 5 offence. Humberside police were taking me to court over an action that didn't fit the criteria for the alleged offence.
There was nobody in sight, I was alone in the street. Number 8s CCTV cameras would confirm that, but Humberside police didn't care about actual evidence when they were fitting me up on manufactured charges.
No offence is committed if the person to whom it is directed, is in another dwelling. She was literally in her house. I flipped my middle finger at the house. So, by legal definition, there was no offence committed.
I attended court with a folder full of evidence in my defence, however I was denied any opportunity to present a defence, as the prosecution solicitor and my duty solicitor worked together to put a restraining order on me, without my knowledge, consent or even involvement.
By denying me a fair trial Humberside police and Hull Magistrates Court breached my human rights, specifically Article 6 of ECHR.
I was never given a chance to put my side or offer a defence, as my duty solicitor was clearly colluding with the prosecution. The nature of the offence meant I didn't qualify for legal aid before my court date, as the offence is considered too minor, so I only had access to a duty solicitor on the day. Perfect for setting me up on manufactured charges of harassment.
Let's move on to STALKING:
The crime of following or harassing another person, causing them to fear injury.
Or fear having a car crash?
'Watching or spying on them' - well I was very obviously being watched and spied on, with 3 CCTV cameras directed at my every move, and someone taking offence when I flipped my finger in an empty street.
'The effect...curtail a person's freedom...feeling like they constantly have to be careful' - again, this absolutely applies to me as the victim. My freedom to live in my own home was significantly impacted, and I was always on edge waiting for the next drama the neighbours made up.
According to the list of behaviours associated with stalking, I fitted the criteria as a victim of at least 3 different behaviours, yet my accuser was apparently only just a victim within 1 behaviour category.
Interesting that the cyber stalking, car vandalism and CCTV pointing at me was all conveniently being ignored by Humberside police.
'Harassment requires a course of conduct likely to involve repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications or contact..' - I had never once tried to contact the neighbours, but she had me. Not only had she contacted me through Facebook messenger, I considered her raising constant anonymous concerns to also be a form of imposing unwanted contact, as there was absolutely no evidence to support any of her ridiculous allegations.
I had, in fact, blocked her and her husband from my social media, so how could my Facebook rants be imposing contact on her when I'd blocked her from seeing them?
She was, however, using alternative (fake) profiles to access my Facebook posts.
And as for the content of my posts:
'Repeated comments during a single event unlikely to satisfy element...' - my Facebook posts were all responses to various single events, therefore my Facebook posts didn't satisfy the criteria for the offence of harassment.
But Humberside police didn't care about that. This was a set up.
'Cyber stalking- the use of social networking sites as a means of surveillance of the victim' - I could not have been less interested in Mrs Lane, couldn't care less about her, I've never searched any sites for her, it's not in my nature. She held absolutely no interest to me whatsoever, I was home educating and far too busy for immature games.
But Mrs Lane was actively using fake profiles on Facebook to watch everything I was posting.
I was clearly the victim of cyber stalking, but Humberside police didn't want to know. My evidence didn't fit their set up.
Surveillance - Spying
Remember, 3 CCTV cameras watching my every move, plus being spied on from an upstairs window.
According to the CPS, I also fitted criteria for being the victim of a campaign of stalking and harassment; I was being watched, been sent letters, and had my car damaged.
But again, Humberside police didn't want to see that evidence. It didn't fit their engineered bullshit and the false charges they were trying to manufacture.
Now, can you see that what happened to me was an obvious, deliberate, and targeted attempt to criminalise me? While completely ignoring the evidence I had, that I was actually the victim of stalking and harassment, Humberside police fitted me up on unfounded, manufactured charges. With zero evidence against me.
Humberside police and Hull Magistrates Court did not follow the above guidance. I was fitted up on manufactured, false charges. This was indeed a neighbour dispute, but one neighbour wasn't being given the opportunity to put their side. My side. The evidence that I was the victim.
Once again, I fitted the CPS criteria as the VICTIM, not the perpetrator. But in a multiagency set up, the law doesn't apply to the true victim. I was the person too scared to be at home, I was paranoid and constantly being spied on. So how were the Lane's being seen as victims? In what capacity, exactly? Except on manufactured, false charges?
Home office guidelines would more than confirm that I was the victim in this situation. And Humberside police were now joining in with the harassment I was suffering.
According to the ICO, I should consider contacting the police about the CCTV cameras filming me and the boys. But I did contact Humberside police, many times, and Humberside police just allowed the illegal surveillance to continue. Why?
When I attended court to answer to, and defend, the section 5 public order allegation, the solicitors working together against me told me they were going to adjourn this offence, and deal with both the section 5 and harassment offence on the same day, the date I was summonsed for harassment.
This was a blatant set up according to the above information. I was conned into believing the adjournment would be in my favour, however it was designed to manufacture the harassment charge.
If the section 5 had been dealt with on the day, there couldn't have been a harassment charge. But not being legally trained, I didn't know that at the time.
But my solicitor would have known. And instead, he conspired with the prosecution to stitch me up. It was a clear set up.
And the reason they set me up is this, they were trying to get me jailed. Section 5 is only a fine, however harassment manufactured by multiple people including Humberside police chief inspector, could get me locked up and silenced, and my kids trafficked into the care system.
I hope the above information, outlining the status of my situation in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, has proven to you that Humberside police conspired with my neighbour, to manufacture false charges of harassment against me, and that Chief Inspector Iain Dixon was part of that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I was the true victim here. As confirmed by the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines.
Humberside police had no evidence of a public order offence being committed, and no evidence of me forcing contact on the Lane's or harassing them in any way whatsoever.
I have plenty of evidence, as featured in my blog posts, but Humberside police and chief inspector Iain Dixon didn't want actual evidence.
BECAUSE CHIEF INSPECTOR IAIN DIXON AND THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED, WERE COMMITTING MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND GROSS MISCONDUCT.
And perverting the course of justice.
All part of an elaborate conspiracy. Had it succeeded, I'd now be labelled as a threat to the public, and my kids removed from all contact with me.
And that, is how child trafficking for profit works, abusing the child protection system by perverting the course of justice.