South Yorkshire Police. Oversight of the force is conducted by Oliver Coppard, Mayor

In this column

 

The Church Army and ASDA, a Corporate Partner of the Church Army

Jude Davis, Director of Chaplaincy and Vocations, Church Army

 

The Church Army and ASDA, a Corporate Partner of the Church Army

 

 

 

 

' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved ...'

 

Below, a different place - Edinburgh, not London - a different preacher - not from the Church Army - a different time - more than a hundred years later - but the same message, in essentials. Giving to the Church Army is financing the same discredited message. South Yorkshire Police is repeatedly giving reckless and biased support for the same discredited message, by actively supporting its discredited messengers.

 

 

 

ASDA is a corporate partner of the Church Army.

 

A page of the Church Army Website, '

 

Our History - Then and Now   

 

includes this, 'Everything we do is built on the foundations laid by Wilson Carlile - a visionary who inspired generations to give hope to millions.' The Headquarters of the Church Army is at the Wilson Carlile Centre in Sheffield.

 

The Church Army page gives a photograph similar to the one at the top of this page,  showing a horse drawn vehicle with words from the Bible. This is one of the texts on the side of the vehicle:

 

'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved ... '

 

The Church Army was formed in 1882. When Wilson Carlile was asked why the organization was called an 'army,' his answer was that the Church Army preachers intended to make war against sin and the devil.

 

The 'hope' preached by the Church Army is this: all people are sinners but not everybody will be damned.  Some will be saved, but the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as Saviour. This view has horrendous consequences. The view of sin throughout most of the history of Christianity wasn't in accordance with modern ideas. For instance, owning slaves, buying and selling men, women and children at slave markets wasn't sinful.

 

Helping the disadvantaged isn't the main purpose of the Church Army. Far more important to the Church Army is converting the disadvantaged or hoping to convert them. According to the beliefs of the Church Army, if the disadvantaged they come into contact with never accept Jesus as Saviour, they go to Hell. 

 

I urge ASDA to contact the Church Army to find out more about the beliefs of the Church Army.  Is the Church Army willing and able to give honest answers to simple questions? I'm sure it will be confirmed that according to Church Army beliefs, the disadvantaged they claim to be helping, all staff members of ASDA, all customers of ASDA, all those who produce the food sold at ASDA, all those who manufacture the goods sold at ASDA, all staff of South Yorkshire Police, all people helped by South Yorkshire police, arrested by South Yorkshire police, in fact all people, are damned - they have exactly the same fate as all murderers and other offenders  - except for the small minority who have accepted Jesus as Saviour. Only these are 'saved.'

 

This is what happens when the Church Army scheme of redemption (the same scheme used by the Church) is applied. If the Church Army can't explain its beliefs and defend its beliefs, why should anyone give money to the Church Army (or the Church) and support the Church Army (or the Church) except for the deeply confused people who believe in such things? 'Deeply confused' is obviously a very polite way of putting it.

 

The problems are extreme in the case of damnation of adults. In the case of children and babies, the problems are indescribable, surely.

 

I've contacted a wide range of Christian so far to bring to their attention the hideous problem of the redemption of babies and children. (This is obviously only a hideous problem for the people who believe in salvation by the blood of Christ.) By some miracle (but not a divine miracle) South Yorkshire Police hasn't sent Police Constables to my house accusing me of harassment. The Church Army are welcome to contact South Yorkshire Police again - yet again - to make a complaint and South Yorkshire Police are welcome to send people out to warn me - unless they come to their senses and realize that doing this is futile and does nothing for their reputation. 

 

Not one of the Christians I've contacted has given me an answer to the problem of the redemption of babies and children.

 

This is the formulation of the problem which I give on my page Church Donations (which gives many reasons not to give money to the Churches and Church organizations). Images included:

The belief that non-believers go to Hell (or are separated from God for eternity) is common knowledge. Vast numbers of Christians, at vast numbers of churches, have this belief, and not just  Conservative Evangelicals.   Not nearly so common now: the belief, held by 'St' Augustine (of Hippo)  that deceased babies who never receive baptism go to hell, that baptism is essential for salvation.

 

 

Not discussed anywhere in the Bible, the fate of non-believing children - and babies. No age limit for redemption is mentioned in the Bible. Can very young children and even babies share the fate of adult non-believers?

 

 

So far as I know, I'm the first person to draw attention to this massive, shocking problem for orthodox believers.  This is a problem for 'liberal' Christians and 'progressive' Christians as well. In my experience, the 'liberals' and 'progressives' often have orthodox beliefs concerning redemption.  They have some explaining to do.

 

The methods used by the Church Army include 'prayer walking.'  Praying has immense importance for the Church Army, although praying hasn't been able to solve the financial problems of the organization. According to a recent announcement, it will run out of reserves in 12 - 18 months.

 

The Church Army hope is that praying and more praying and even more praying will lead to greater influence and more conversions - more 'sinners' saved from Hell - as well as an improvement in their financial situation.

 

On my Website, I include much more information about the Church Army, information which to me is deeply disturbing. I provide detailed evidence. I have very good reason for viewing the Church Army as a discredited organization, one which doesn't deserve financial or any other support. There are so many charities which do deserve support and ASDA should not be using money - money which comes from paying customers, of course - to support the Church Army.

 

From the Church Army page

 

Church Army page Corporate Partnerships  

 

'Partnering with us can lead to lasting benefits for your company.'

 

It can lead to short-term benefits for the Church Army but association will not benefit a company in any way. ASDA is one of the companies named as Corporate Partners on the page. ASDA is a large supermarket chain with its own ethos, its own way of doing things. I don't think it will gain commercially by the deal in any way. When people choose a supermarket for their shopping, then not even a minute proportion of them will be influenced by any association with the Church Army.

 

I take the view that ethical considerations should play a major role in the choice of supermarket to receive a customer's money. I also take the view that the Church Army  organization with any claim to ethical strength. Its practices, in my experience, are often shockingly bad - but the evasive Website conceals the realities.

 

I think that the money given by ASDA to the Church Army is money wasted and that ASDA would be advised not to waste any more money. I regard the Church Army as a harmful organization. ASDA is under no compulsion to share my view but I hope that they will recognize that continued support for the organization is, to say the least, inadvisable.

 

The Church Army has strong links with the Church of England and the Church of England is becoming a discredited organization. If people had fuller knowledge of what the Church of England gets up to, for example, fuller knowledge of the scale of abuse in the church and the failure to deal with it effectively or at all, then the Church would be widely regarded as a harmful rather than beneficial organization. 

 

The Church Army is welcome to publish a response to counter the evidence I provide in the pages of this site but I think it's very unlikely they will make the attempt. As I show in pages of the site, in my experience, this is an organization which prefers to suppress, censor, ban and block fair-minded comment and criticism rather than answer it.

 

Jude Davis, Director of Chaplaincy and Vocations, Church Army  

 

I went to the Centre simply in the hope of seeing Faye Popham of the Church Army, to discuss the letter she had sent me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this column

 

Oliver Coppard, Mayor, and Alan Billings

The King: a document

Lauren Poultney, Chief Constable, SYP
Sergeant Hannah Woods, SYP North West
PC Sarah Forsythe, SYP North West

 

Sheffield and disillusionment

 

Oliver Coppard, Mayor

 

Below, Oliver Coppard with Keir Starmer. Oliver Coppard now has oversight responsibilities for South Yorkshire Police

 

 

You would think that oversight which allows staff of South Yorkshire Police to engage in reckless behaviour, to pay no attention to the law of the land in some cases, to pay no attention to priorities, is defective oversight. My experience is of treatment by South Yorkshire Police which should never have happened, not on one occasion but repeatedly.  Here, I'll simply give information about the most recent occasion. I'm making a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct about a Sergeant and Police Constable of South Yorkshire Police but I take the view that it would be wrong to put the entire blame on people at this level. I'd argue that failures on the part of the Chief Constable and the Mayor play a part.

 

This is a summary of events, told partly in the present historic tense - the present used to describe past events, but, as I say, very recent events. All the dates are from 2025.

 

3 March. I visit the Wilson Carlile Centre, hoping to be able to speak to Faye Popham, the 'Associate Director of Organisational Development' and the Safeguarding Co-ordinator of the Church Army. I can't email Faye Popham because emails from me to all email addresses of the Church Army have been blocked for years.

 

 As I explain in various places on the site, all I'd done was to send an email pointing out issues which I regarded as important, in particular, security and safety considerations which I thought had been overlooked by a person employed by the Church Army who was promoting a garden church to bring Christianity to an area which includes extensive allotments. I pointed out amongst other things that there had been a stabbing in an allotment not far away. A school pupil was murdered. Security and safety issues are strong interests of mine.

 

More on the visit of 3 March. I wanted to speak to Faye Popham because she'd sent me a letter which included this comment on a letter I'd sent:

But the letter sent to me included this:

 

'I am aware that the police have been notified of this correspondence being sent to multiple people.'

 

 

I was informed that Faye Popham wasn't at work on that day. I thanked the person who told me that and left the building. This was only the second time I've been in the place. On the first occasion, I was there for only a minute or two, to deliver three copies of a letter. The person who was the main recipient was the person who took the decision to block all emails from me. I gave reasons for finding his action not just excessive but completely groundless, completely unreasonable.

 

4 March.  I visit the Wilson Carlile Centre again, hoping to see Faye Popham. Am told that she's in a meeting. The staff member who gives me the information is Jude Davis, Director of Chaplaincy and Vocations and a member of the Church Army 'Senior Leadership Team.'

 

It isn't made clear to me whether I have a chance of seeing Faye Popham or not after the meeting finishes or when it finishes. I'm in doubt as to my best course of action and nothing is said to help me. What I do next is to mention a matter which had only come to my attention very recently. I'd already decided that I was justified in taking it further and justified in mentioning it now. After all, emails to Jude Davis or anyone else in the Church Army were out of the question. This was a small window of opportunity to mention a matter I felt was important.

 

It concerned fund-raising and I give information about what I said in the column to the right. Until then, she had seemed relatively relaxed but her mood changed abruptly once I mentioned this issue of fund-raising and the relevance of doctrines of the Church Army to fundraising. Jude Davis is a Trustee of the Church Army. The matters which I mentioned at this point have direct relevance to her duties as Trustee, which include, of course, aspects of oversight.

 

I didn't mention anything or do anything which could possibly justify her order, delivered in the manner of a stern, disciplinarian schoolteacher to a very young pupil, 'I'm asking you NOW to leave the building.' The matters I mentioned didn't amount to a complaint but they were matters of concern and she ought to have taken a very different approach.

 

 Because I didn't obey the command immediately, the command was repeated: 'I'm asking you NOW to leave the building.' This was followed quite quickly by yet anthor repetition of the command. I left and walked some distance, towards the city centre, using the walk as time to think about what had happened. My van was parked outside the Wilson Carlile Centre and it would be quite some time before I needed to move it.  I decided to go back to the Centre for the briefest of visits before drivin away, simply to make known my feeling, my conviction, that the treatment I'd received was completely unreasonable. I went into the building again, simply made that clear, and left. As I fully expected, the reaction was hostile.

 

When I got back home, after about an hour and a half, there was a knock at the door. There were two PC's outside. I let them in. The front room, like all the rooms of the house, is small, There's equipment I've designed and constructed taking up quite a lot of floor space and I had bulky materials for a new design and construction project taking up more space.

 

The young woman PC did most of the talking, or the talking was shared between myself and the young woman PC. The young male PC was fine, but the young woman's behaviour fell far below the standard to be expected, in my view.

 

She talked to me as if talking to a hooligan, someone who has been trashing the environment. The Church Army had obviously given a version of events which was completely distorted but I don't think she mentioned events at the Wilson Carlile Centre once. It was all about the copies of the letter which I'd sent to people. She used the word 'Harassment' in this connection. It was completely clear that in her view, I had been harassing the Church Army by sending copies of the letter.

 

But I was completely entitled to send copies of the letter. The law supports my sending copies of the letter. I did mention to her and her colleague Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which upholds 'the right to hold and express opinions, and to receive and share information and ideas.'

 

The letter was written to the King and for the King. It contained argument and evidence for my view that the King should consider relinquishing his role as Patron of the Church Army. The people who received copies of the letter could all be expected to have an interest in matters mentioned in the letter. I thought it appropriate that these people should know that I had contacted the King and the reasons for contacting him. I supplied evidence for my views in every case. I outlined some previous actions of the Church Army which I found deeply disturbing, including the unnecessary and damaging decision to block emails from me.

 

I mentioned the fact that the police action which took place in 2022  following a complaint from a Church Army member was at a very difficult time.  My mother had been seriously ill for a long time and she died a few weeks after the issuing of the 'Community Protection Notice: Written Warning.'

 

The nature of the complaint of this Church Army member and consequences of the complaint are made clear on two pages of the site, Church Documents and Church Integrity. Since those pages were written, there have been other developments and other consequences, deeply damaging ones.

 

I was born in the same year as the King. The King's mother died at the age of 96 and so did my mother.

 

The Written Warning made it clear that according to their version of reality, South Yorkshire Police has the right to suppress 'mention' of someone's personal faith. Of course, South Yorkshire Police has no such right. I have the right to mention someone's personal faith if I want to.

 

The South Yorkshire Police document also claims that my conduct 'is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of those in the locality and the conduct is unreasonable ...' but absolutely no evidence was offered to support that claim. I do have evidence of my benefits to the locality, on the other hand. The land I rent is near to my house and is part of this locality. The Home Page gives evidence, in the form of many images, of some benefits - an orchard, a wildlife pond, images of the wild flowers which grow there, the crops I've grown there, and much more. There are images of the swift nesting boxes I've designed and constructed, for use on the house, to benefit those miraculous birds. 

 

 The letter contains this in the final paragraph:

If I disagree with a view and I regard opposition to the view as an important matter, I argue against it by verbal means. I use images extensively on the site but I regard images as far less important. They can aid a case in some circumstances but are never a substitute for responsible use of argument and evidence. I welcome constructive criticism, am ready to answer responsible criticism and never resort to suppression.

 

The King is also Patron of the National Allotment Society and I mentioned the fact that as a member of the NAS, I had had an article published in the magazine of the society, giving information about the greenhouse I designed and constructed which has multiple environmental advantages. I share the King's interest in environmental matters and mentioned the work I've carried out which has been recognized by award of a Patent in the United States.

 

The complete document is provided below. Anyone who reads it, the whole or, more likely, some of it, will find that there's nothing in the document remotely resembling 'Harassment.' I won't claim that it's South Yorkshire Police harassing me and the Church Army harassing me, but just for this reason: 'harassment' is a word which is perhaps overused and certainly misused very often. It's a word I prefer to avoid. Claims of harassment can be made so easily - by simply mentioning the word. For me, it's essential that claims should be based on evidence presented with enough detail to make a case.

 

I do claim that South Yorkshire Police and the Church Army (and the Church of Englandneed to take action to try to correct their tendency to make  extreme errors of judgment.

 

A recommendation to South Yorkshire Police: you have absolutely no need to send out not one but two PC's about a matter which doesn't require any action on your part whatsoever. The fact that the visit to my house came so quickly - less than two hours after I left the Wilson Carlile Centre - isn't a recommendation but grossly mistaken. There was nothing that justified such urgent action, nothing that justified any action at all.

 

In the column to the left, praise for South Yorkshire Police - and information about grotesque, very disturbing action of South Yorkshire Police - using scarce police resources to send a Police Constable to my house to issue a 'Harassment Warning,' for using the words blundering buffoon' in a voice mail message which reached only two people, and an email message which reached only one person. The PC was here for an hour. In the meantime, South Yorkshire Police and other police forces take no action whatsoever in serious cases, as with the large numbers of shoplifting cases involving violence because the violence isn't serious enough to warrant any action on their part.

 

There's criticism of Alan Billings' multiple failures in various places on this site. This is now  the  main page. The Harassment Warning was issued many years ago, in the early years of Alan Billing's ineffectual-and-disastrous misuse of the post he occupied, South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

Now, we have a new person who is supposed to exercise oversight of South Yorkshire Police: Oliver Coppard. The Office of South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner is no more. Now we have the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority led by Oliver Coppard. But I'll only comment further on matters which apply directly to myself. So far, the signs aren't encouraging in the least. Abuses which went unchecked when Alan Billings exercise oversight continue now that Oliver Coppard exercises oversight. The evidence I provide should leave no room for doubt that these are real abuses.

 

South Yorkshire Police are still ready to take action which is against the law of the land. 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' is sometimes quoted in one of two  Latin forms:

 

 'ignorantia juris non excusat' or   'ignorantia legis neminem excusat.'

 

Both forms express the legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content. South Yorkshire Police's ignorance of the law relating to freedom of expression is abysmal, in my experience.

 

In December of last year, I asked the Church Army to supply information about the complaints procedure. There had been events of a deeply disturbing nature, in my view. I couldn't find any information about the Church Army's complaints procedure on their Website. It was six weeks before I had a reply, from Faye Popham, the 'Associate Director of Organisational Development' who also has responsibilities in Safeguarding.

 

A few days before I received this letter, I sent an email to Rt Revd Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, Bishop of Loughborough, Chair of the Board of Trustees for Church Army, 24 January 2025 which included this:

 

I have made it completely clear that I wish to make a complaint to the Church Army itself but have been unable to do so. A proper complaints procedure is, of course, indispensable for any organization which values its reputation but I have been unable to find information on the Church Army Website concerning the way to proceed. My request for information, made quite a long time ago, has gone unanswered. I sent a letter to various individuals in the Church Army which mentioned these matters but …  again, there has been no response.

 

It may be that Faye Popham wrote to me after being contacted by the Bishop.

 

In the letter sent to the King, I mentioned my environmental work, the fact that an article written by me was published in the magazine of the National Allotment Society (Issue 2, 2023). It described innovations in greenhouse design and construction with multiple environmental benefits. It gave information about the United States Patent I've been awarded for innovations in farming, with multiple, wide-ranging environmental benefits.

 

The King is a Patron of the National Allotment Society. He's also a Patron of the Church Army. Members of the Church Army have repeatedly contacted South Yorkshire Police - which has repeatedly sent out officers to take action or attempted action regarding matters which are legitimate matters of comment, in connection with rights which the law of the UK recognizes and protects - but protects very inadequately - by means of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

The force have made attempts to have me remove material from my Website - the material is courteous, with abundant evidence.

 

During the period when Alan Billings was supposedly exercising oversight, the police called to issue me with a Community Protection Notice: WRITTEN WARNING. There's full information about this hideous document on the page Church Documents

 

Amongst the 'Details of the Conduct' is this: 'In some of these correspondences you make mention of her personal faith.' So South Yorkshire Police feels entitled to police comment on Christianity - to suppress any comment on Christianity, if the comment is unfavourable?

 

I called at Church Army Headquarters to explain that I'd simply sent a document to some members of the Church Army. I'd included a very brief comment, not in printed form but in biro, at the top of the first page, making it clear that I was making a copy of the document available because the content had relevance to the Church Army.

 

People at and near the reception desk of the Church Army became more and more heated and I was asked to leave the building immediately. I'd done absolutely nothing to be treated in this way, to have my comment on the letter I'd received cut short. I complied, not immediately, but soon.

 

I went back home and less than two hours later, there was a knock at the door - South Yorkshire PC's back again. More detail to be supplied on the visit, which left me feeling that oversight of South Yorkshire Police is grossly inadequate, in matters to do with freedom of expression.

 

My environmental work is very, very important to me. By now, I should be promoting my innovations in the United States. I've had to spend far too long defending my interests, defending my reputation against outright misrepresentation, complete falsification, matters which are not just minor but non-existent made the basis of spurious allegations on the part of the Church Army.

 

The King: a document and some consequences

 

For the attention of The Private Secretary to His Majesty The King

 

Sir,

 

This is emphatically not a request for the King to intervene in a personal dispute. None of the issues raised can be regarded as amounting to a ‘personal dispute.’ This letter concerns the King’s Patronage of the Church Army and matters arising from that role. I give information about policies and actions of the Church Army which raise some very significant questions. The issues raised have wider significance, in particular for the faith and practice of the Church of England. I give information about environmental innovations I have made, including innovations in farming for which I have been awarded a United States patent. These are relevant to the very different issues discussed and examined here. I am not seeking the King’s help in any way, in this matter of my environmental work and my work in gardening and farming or any of the other matters mentioned here. I simply provide background information about some issues which I have good reason for thinking have relevance to the King and relevance to Anglicanism and I provide information about my reasons.

I would be grateful if the material provided here could be brought to the attention of His Majesty or his advisers. The issues I raise are not particularly complex, in essence, but they do have very wide-ranging repercussions. My starting point in the preliminary material provided here is the fact that his Majesty is the Patron of the Church Army and the Patron of the National Allotment Society.

I am not an Anglican or a believing Christian in any sense, but I would make the obvious point that individuals may be loyal subjects of his Majesty without sharing the Anglican beliefs of the King. I very much share the concern, the passion of the King for environmental causes, for matters to do with gardening and farming.

The material here is a small part of the very extensive material already provided by my Website, www.linkagenet.com However, I never expect or assume that this Website will be consulted. Whenever I send a letter or an email about matters addressed in the Website, I provide basic information in the letter or email.

I would suggest that consulting the Home Page of the site – in fact, simply scrolling down the long page – would make it abundantly clear that gardening and farming are central concerns of mine and that my attitude to Christian faith in general and the Church of England in particular is a very different one. It would also indicate that I have an intense appreciation for the armed forces of this country, for the magnificent contribution of the armed forces of this country and the civilian population of this country in the face of enormous threats. The contribution of His Majesty to the maintenance of this proud tradition is very much appreciated.

Before I provide material in print, taking the form of argument supported by evidence, I will provide this very brief information about the Website cited here. I do not assume in the least that popularity is a determinant of value. I stress the importance of minority views, including, in some cases, unpopular views. The ‘moral universe’ has to be based on foundations which are far more secure than any based on popularity, which may well be only temporary. I give some current Google rankings for my Website with this important reservation in mind. Google no longer provides a figure for the total number of results for the search terms. The ones provided here are from the period, not so long ago, when the information was available.

 

The current Google ranking    for the search term ethical depth is 1 / 146,000,000 total results.   

 

The current Google ranking for the search term farming water collecting composting is
1/ 28,000,000.

 

The current Google ranking for the search term Christianity remembrance redemption is
1 / 12,700,000

 

As I note on the Home Page, ,The British Library, the national library of the United Kingdom, has selected all of this site for preservation. It has taken the decision to preserve the site and to make it available, no matter what changes there may be in computer technology in the future.

The Home Page gives ready access to the pages of the site concerned with environmental matters – including gardening and farming – and matters to do with Christian faith and practice and the faith and practice of the Church of England in particular.

After these remarks, I address in concise form some central events which, unfortunately, may have the potential to cause difficulties for His Majesty. I suggest some ways of reducing the difficulties but my view is that actions of the Church Army have already had a damaging effect, are reason for deep concern, and that it will not be possible now for the Church Army to undo the damage. All that can be achieved is limitation of the damage, by taking action of a kind which should already have been taken.

I give information in far more detail in a range of pages of my Website, including these:

www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-army.htm (a principal source of information)

www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-army-mission-centre.htm

www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-donations.htm

www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-integrity.htm

www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-documents.htm

 

www.linkagenet.com/themes/new-creations.htm

www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-shame.htm [despite the title of the page, the content is eminently reasonable, offering abundant argument and evidence.]

 

www.linkagenet.com/themes/security-safety-safeguarding-survival.htm

 

www.linkagenet.com/phd/vineyard-orchard-polytunnel-growing.htm

 

www.linkagenet.com/phd/patent1.pdf

 

www.linkagenet.com/phd/phdnew.htm [the principal source of general information concerning innovations in gardening, construction and other fields, with multiple applications and multiple environmental benefits.]

On 15 February 2022, there was a knock at the door. Two members of South Yorkshire Police called to deliver a WRITTEN WARNING. (Capital letters as in the document supplied to me.) The document included this:

Pursuant to Section 43 Part 4 Chapter 1 (Community Protection Notices) Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

' ... your conduct is having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality and the conduct is unreasonable.'

'If from this time and date, the conduct is still having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those in the locality, you will be served a Community Protection Notice. It is a criminal offence not to comply with the Notice ... If found guilty you could be fined up to £2,500.'

 

The images in a prominent position on the Home Page of my Website, in particular the larger images, many of which relate to my work in the land I rent in this neighbourhood, constitute a record of my sustained work to benefit the neighbourhood: construction of a large pond and other ponds, for storage of rainwater collected by a variety of water-collecting surfaces and for the benefit of wildlife – the pond attracts frogs and dragonflies. The planting and encouragement of a wide range of wildflowers. Innovations in composting, in growing beds and growing bed boundaries – wooden partitions supported on stakes to ensure that the wood lasts much longer. New designs in swift nest boxes, which can be installed without working at a height but from inside a room, to encourage these threatened, glorious birds. Growing a wide range of vegetable and fruit crops (and hazel nut trees), with an abundance of produce involving no ‘food miles’ at all: the crops are grown less than a mile from my house.

A new greenhouse design. An article by me, ‘Greenhouse Creation,’ was published on Page 41 in ‘Allotment and Leisure Gardener,’ the magazine of the National Allotment Society. The same edition included material on the Coronation of King Charles III.

 

There was insufficient space to do justice to the environmental advantages of my design. This is the description on the Home Page of my site, which provides fuller information on the greenhouse and also on a New Growing System, for use in farming. This innovatory system has been awarded a United States patent and has very wide-ranging environmental benefits.

 

It is extraordinary, and extraordinarily unjust, that I should have been presented with this document, which had been written without any attempt to contact me to find out what I was able to offer in defence – if the attempt had been made, I would have been able to offer a complete defence, able to show that there was absolutely no need to send out two police officers to my house, to use police time and police resources at a time when a large proportion of public who seek the help of the police for substantial reasons are disappointed, the police making no effort or next to no effort to help, or unable to help due to the constraints they face.

The material on the Home Page:

 

The core structure takes the form of a triangular prism (a shape with great structural strength.) Around the core structure are extensions, here with curved panels. Three straight panels of the core structure are visible on this North-facing side. There are 3 panels on the South-facing side. The system has great versatility. With all the panels in place, gutters and pipes at the base can divert water collected from the roof to water storage containers and ponds (dual-function, for water storage and to benefit wildlife). Panels can be removed and put back very easily.

 

When most or all of the panels are removed, crops inside the greenhouse can be watered with natural rainfall. The system has many advantages for water conservation. It reduces reliance on mains water. It has many other benefits, e.g. for temperature control. Ventilation is very important, to reduce or eliminate overheating when external temperatures are high and for other reasons. One or more panels can be removed and all the panels can be removed, to give maximum ventilation.

 

Plastic coverings don't enhance the appearance of a site, for most people. When polycarbonate sheets aren't needed, none need be visible. One of the panels on the South- facing side has been removed permanently. A grape vine in the greenhouse grows inside the greenhouse, at roof level, and outside, higher up, above the roof. 

 

The extensions ... include a 'solar composter,' which speeds up the production of compost by the greenhouse effect, a wildlife / water storage pond and other growing areas. There's a much larger wildlife / water storage pond outside the greenhouse and other water-collecting surfaces and water storage facilities.  

 

An extension on the East side includes a storage area for e.g. tools and supplies and a working area for e.g. propagation. A straw bale wall has been a feature of this extension (shown above, also with a straw bale storage area.)

 

My New Growing System for farms has the advantages of the New Greenhouse Design as well as many other features.  From the official U.S. patent documunt: ' ... the present invention is a trellising system with modifiable components and configurations for growing, protected cropping, protected working, materials handling, water collecting and water conservation for use in vineyards and orchards and as a polytunnel substitute.' 

 

The New System has aesthetic advantages. The plastic sheeting which forms part of the system is needed to secure environmental advantages but is unnecessary when external temperatures are high and no water can be collected. Unlike the plastic of polytunnels, the plastic used in this system can be retracted. The plastic need not be visible when not needed. The plant growth on the unobtrusive supports will be seen all the more clearly.

In fact, the complainant, Lu Skerratt-Love, was not from the neighbourhood and was not complaining about any local matters. Lu Skerratt-Love was employed by the Research Department of the Church Army at the time and has now been ordained, in June 2024. At present, she is a curate in the Liverpool Diocese.

This was the section 'Details of the Conduct' which accompanied the WRITTEN WARNING. I've detailed evidence to  show conclusively that the section 'Details of the Conduct' is false and grossly unjust in every respect.

 

'The police have become aware of you contacting Lu Skerratt-Love via email and hand delivered letters. You have also been contacting her work colleagues via email and letter regarding her. In some of these correspondences you make mention of her personal faith. When you write these emails and letters it causes great upset to Lu and her colleagues at work. This is not fair and certainly not right to do so. It is important that you realise how much you are upsetting / distressing Lu with this conduct. You would not wish for such conduct for your loved ones. We are willing to help in anyway [sic].'

 

In the detailed documentation available on the site, I show that Lu Skerratt-Love never received any emails from me. A single person at the Church Army, Dr Tim Ling, received a single email from me. Dr Ling is ‘Director of Organisational Development at Church Army. He provides strategic oversight for the work of the Research Unit.’ Lu Skerratt-Love has never received a single email from me. I give the evidence showing that the very few emails I sent to Lu Skerratt-Love and to Dr Ling were blocked, except for the single email sent to Dr Ling. Both Dr Ling and Lu Skerratt-Love received a letter from me.

I give the content of the email and the letter in more than one place on the pages of the Website. The content was completely courteous. I contacted the Church Army to express concern about a proposed Garden Church, for reasons to do with safety and security at the proposed site.

 

My work involves not only environmental activities but activities to do with promoting safety. Lu Skerratt-Love was involved in promoting the Garden Church, as a Founder Member. It seemed to me that there were clear-cut hazards which had not been taken into account. I made every effort to have removed a very large pile of hazardous rubbish which was on the land used by  the Garden Church. These hazards could potentially affect children brought to Garden Church services and wildlife in the vicinity.

 

Issues to do with security at the site had seemingly been overlooked. I and others have had personal experience of the issues. This was a long time before these events, but there had been a murder at one of the allotments in this area, a boy being stabbed with a garden fork.

The Garden Church was abandoned. Nothing whatever had been done to prune the enormously high hedges around the site, which blocked out so much of the light and which made any realistic use of the land for constructive growing impossible.

After receiving one email from me, Dr Ling promptly blocked further emails from me, not only to himself, not only to Lu Skerratt-Love but, it seems, to all members of the Church Army. Later, I attempted to contact a Church Army evangelist at the Church Army Darnall and Attercliffe Centre of Mission to express my concern that the centre had no safeguarding officer, and found that the email was blocked.

 

Safeguarding issues are a very significant issue for the Church of England, of course. It’s surely essential that no unnecessary obstacles should be placed in the way of individuals who wish to contact the Church Army, not only about matters to do with abuse, potentially, but a range of other issues.

I would like to make a formal complaint concerning the actions of Dr Ling and some other issues concerning members of the Church Army. I found that emails were still blocked so I found another method of contacting the Church Army and made a simple request: to be provided with a complaints form or advice as to an appropriate way of beginning the complaints process.

 

I have received no reply from the Church Army. Reputable organizations have to make available the means of making known concerns in this way, when necessary, by formal complaint. Wherever possible, if the matters concerned are not too serious, then of course informal representations may well be adequate, involving discussion – but the act of blocking communications from me for no good reason and the seriousness of the situation in general made that method impossible.

I viewed the situation as serious, and still do, very much so. As it happened, the visit by South Yorkshire Police took place at a difficult time. My mother had been ill for a long time. At the time of the police visit, she was 96 years old. The document had an effect, then, so much so that I decided to visit a city centre police station, not to complain but to make my feelings known. When I arrived there, I quickly became distraught and left. From the police station, I went to the hospital where my mother was now a patient. I found that my mother had died a short time before. My brother had arrived at the hospital and my sister arrived soon afterwards.

My organization, or ‘project,’ ‘PHD: Paul Hurt Design and Construction’ has only one person who carries out all its work – myself, with many, many other demands on my time. Despite that fact, it is very well established, with, I would claim, many achievements to its credit, including the granting of the United States Patent.

Another ‘project,’ South Yorkshire Counter-Evangelism, is also the work of one person, myself, but is also well established, with a record of sustained work in furtherance of the objectives of the project.

The section ‘Details of the Conduct’ which accompanies the WRITTEN WARNING’ includes this, ‘In some of these correspondences you make mention of her personal faith.’

The Sergeant of South Yorkshire Police who wrote this section and who authorized the visit by the two members of South Yorkshire Police to deliver the document was a Conservative Evangelical with theological views which are very different from those of Lu Skerratt-Love, a Trans activist, but beliefs which overlap to a significant extent.

Both should be aware – but were obviously unaware, or chose not to take this into account – that as a matter of strict fact, South Yorkshire Police, as a public body, is bound by the Human Rights Act of 1998. Article 10 protects the right to hold opinions and to express them freely without interference.

As a matter of fact, the material concerned with Christian belief in the email and printed material I made available was very small in extent and completely courteous. The fact that the document presented to me contained this attempt at stifling freedom of expression is very disturbing. The falsifications – I have detailed evidence that they were falsifications – are also deeply disturbing.

My page www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-army.htm gives, in the second column of the page, a quotation from an address of King Charles to faith leaders in September 2022, making clear the importance of his Anglican faith to him. It also gives the reaction of Peter Rouch, then Chief Executive Officer of the Church Army. It includes this, ‘ For many years Church Army UK and Ireland has been honoured by the patronage of the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom … ‘

I have already spent a very subsantial amount of time documenting the issues raised by the deeply mistaken actions of some people employed by the Church Army and taking action available to me. If it were not for the actions of these people, there would never have been the need for me to contact His Majesty’s Private Secretary. I intend to carry on working to draw attention to what I believe are grossly unjust actions. The media, national and international, may report these issues soon or eventually or never. I restrict myself to actions which are in my power to achieve.

I regard the material in this letter as preliminary material. I realize that a reply is not to be expected, but I take the view that circumstances may well change, perhaps markedly so, and that a reply from the advisers to his Majesty may eventually become a matter of necessity, or simple prudence.

The issues are already in the public domain, by publication on my Website, although not in finished form. I intend the process of revision and extension to continue. I would very much like to minimize any trouble and inconvenience to His Majesty. I am not a publicity-seeker - the obscure life suits me and my way of working to a large extent.

As I note in the page ‘About this site,’ for a very long time, my policy was that all emails sent to me were treated as private. The contents of emails would not be made public on my site or in other places, in whole or in part, unless with the consent of the sender. The policy remains, but with certain exceptions. Wherever possible, I see the need for confidentiality. Those who contact me are not subject to the same restrictions, of course. They may use the information as they wish. Phone calls to me are subject to the same self-imposed rules. I see the need for privacy and discretion unless these considerations are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I regard the Church Army as a Church organization with serious flaws. The outline here does not state the extent of the flaws, it cannot do justice to the issues but it will, I hope, make clear that there is a case to answer. I provide argument and evidence, far more detailed in Website materials than here. The Church Army can decide to answer, to defend itself and its interests, or it may choose to do nothing. I would suggest that there are possible consequences, perhaps likely consequences, if the Church Army does nothing.

I live not far from the Church Army headquarters in Sheffield. I view many, many protests which take place as unhelpful, sometimes very damaging, doing nothing for the causes concerned. I have display boards and facilities for producing posters and display materials. I refer to the events I have undertaken quite often not as ‘protests’ but as ‘displays’ or ‘presentations.’ Whatever name is most suitable, I have the means and the willingness to further this campaign with determination, in person, in public. I don’t restrict myself to online campaigning.

Last year, I actively opposed the student encampment at Sheffield University – I’m not Jewish, but I actively campaign for Israel, Israel’s right to defend itself against the threats to its existence, and malicious accusations of genocide, accusations which show complete lack of recognition of the realities of military action and defence. My Website provides detailed information about my activities during this campaign. I contacted the University to draw attention to the extreme fire risk at the encampment. When, eventually, the encampment was closed down by the University, the fire risk was one of the reasons given by the University authorities.

I will make copies of this letter available to Matt Barlow, the present Chief Executive Officer of the Church Army and to Dr Tim Love. Assuming that I can be given access to a complaints form or given information about the complaints procedure of the Church Army – I trust that there is such a thing – the next stage for me will be to submit a complaint. If not, then further effort will be needed to fulfil this reasonable request.

 

This is, however, not the only avenue I am pursuing. The others include a complaint against South Yorkshire Police, which in response to yet another approach by Lu Skerratt-Love sent a police constable to my house on 10 December, 2024, with the intention of persuading me to remove material from my Website. The attempt was unsuccessful.

The page ‘About this site’ states my policy regarding removal of material from my Website. It contains the information that if a person is facing great difficulties, I am willing to remove material so as not to cause further difficulties for the person. This information was available on my site well before Lu Skerratt-Love made her initial complaint and is still there. I do not give way to demands to remove material and of course, material may need to stay if there is a clear-cut case of outweighing – the advantages of the material remaining outweighing other considerations.

If I disagree with a view and I regard opposition to the view as an important matter, I argue against it by verbal means. I use images extensively on the site but I regard images as far less important. They can aid a case in some circumstances but are never a substitute for responsible use of argument and evidence. I welcome constructive criticism, am ready to answer responsible criticism and never resort to suppression. I do not regard words as a substitute for action in protecting the vital interests of the state – I refer to democratic not totalitarian states, of course. Deep seated problems are not always solved by diplomacy or conciliation. There is certainly no prospect of conciliation in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Hurt

 

 

Lauren Poultney, Chief Constable, South Yorkshire Police

 

From the page 'Inspirational Edge Hill Alumni paving the way in the field of Law and Policing,'

 

https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/news/2023/09/inspirational-edge-hill-alumni-paving-the-way-in-the-field-of-law-and-policing/

 

Much more material will need to be added to this section, which won't be in the least unreservedly critical.

 

Lauren Poultney on her time at Edge Hill:

 

'My studies really opened my mind to critical  thinking ... '

 

And she leads a force which in my experience is determined to suppress critical thinking if the use of evidence and the conclusions annoy people who have absolutely no interest in critical thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email    

 

 

 

In this column

 

South Yorkshire Police: strengths

South Yorkshire Police: a  Police Information Notice (Harassment Warning), the start of it all

 

South Yorkshire Police: strengths

 

 

The comment above about talking to South Yorkshire Police applies only to the force in its self-appointed role as Defender of the Christian Faith against fair-minded  comment and thorough, wide-ranging evidence.

 

My dealings with South Yorkshire Police (and other police forces) have been infrequent, very infrequent. When I have contacted them or been contacted by them, or simply spoken to police officers,  I've found them courteous, efficient - impressive, in fact, very impressive. I make it clear that the concerns discussed on this page and in some places on a few other pages relate to one set of issues only. They don't in the least constitute general criticism of the police. Far too many criticisms of police forces, including South Yorkshire Police, are generalized, deeply unfair criticisms, ignoring the vast benefits of the police forces and the overall record and achievements of the police.

 

Police forces, like the armed forces, have fundamental importance in any democratic society, protecting society against internal threats and external threats. The internal threats include the threat of terrorism and  the threat of anarchy, which would make any ordered democratic institutions impossible, such as the transfer of power from one democratically elected government to another.

 

But the police forces have a vast range of other benefits, to name only a few, deterring and imposing sanctions on vandalism, child abuse, domestic abuse, cruelty to animals ... the list is very long.

 

Police forces are massive operations, employing a very large number of staff. It would be impossible to ensure that all members of staff behave and carry out their duties in a way which could not be criticized.  The resources available to the police are limited, like the resources available to the armed forces. They are subject to the same restrictions as other organizations, the imperfections which are fundamental realities of life. Again and again, well-publicized failures and transgressions are used as evidence for claims that  the whole organization is 'rotten to the core' or beyond reform. Almost always, this amounts to flagrant exaggeration.

 

I do share the common view that police forces have surrendered far too much of their independence to support for 'woke' views. There are pages of the site which criticize 'woke' views and places in which I criticize some anti-woke' views, or some ridiculous views of people who have some reasonable views.

 

Despite the experiences recorded on this page, I think very highly of South Yorkshire Police.

 

South Yorkshire Police: a  Police Information Notice (Harassment Warning), the start of it all

 

This section, with detailed information about a case long ago, is included for good reasons. When two police constables came to my house recently, on 4 March, one of them used the word 'harassment' in connection with a complaint made by members of the Church Army. I had called at the Wilson Carlile Centre on the morning of that day so that I could speak if at all possible with Fay Popham of the Church Army. She had sent me a letter which made it clear that simply sending a single copy of a letter to some individuals connected with the Church Army amounted in her view to 'harassment.'

 

In her letter to me, Faye Popham, who has safeguarding duties at the Church Army, wrote that she was 'aware that the police have been notified of this correspondence being sent to multiple people.'

 

The correspondence which Faye Popham took to be harassment and the Police took to be 'Harassment' (it was used by PC Forsythe in the 'interview' or 'exchange of views at my house) included this paragraph. I doubt if Faye Popham read any of the 'correspondence.' Perhaps she looked at the first sentence. She would have found this if she had read further:

 

After receiving one email from me, Dr Ling promptly blocked further emails from me, not only to himself, not only to Lu Skerratt-Love but, it seems, to all members of the Church Army. Later, I attempted to contact a Church Army evangelist at the Church Army Darnall and Attercliffe Centre of Mission to express my concern that the centre had no safeguarding officer, and found that the email was blocked. Safeguarding issues are a very significant issue for the Church of England, of course. It’s surely essential that no unnecessary obstacles should be placed in the way of individuals who wish to contact the Church Army, not only about matters to do with abuse, potentially, but a range of other issues.

 

I think it possible that the issuing of a Police Information Notice (often referred to as a harassment warning) is still recorded on the police computer.

 

The police constable who issued the Police Information Notice had a very forbidding manner, as if she were dealing with an anti-social trouble-maker. The Police Constable who referred to 'harassment' in this recent visit had a very similar manner.

 

It's likely that this Police Constable was well aware that I had been issued with a 'harassment warning' ten years ago and assumed that there was a pattern of behaviour here.

 

My reputation is important to me. Below, there's information about the circumstances of the visit in 2015.

 

If South Yorkshire Police imagine that sending a Police Constable to my house (she was here for an hour) was a good use of police time, then they're surely mistaken, badly mistaken. For what purpose? I'd called someone a 'blundering buffoon' as part of a general voicemail message. My tone wasn't threatening in the least. These were people I knew well, colleagues of mine in the science department.

 

The claim in the Police Information Notice that I had called both of them 'blundering buffoons' is false. I had only referred to one of them in this way, the husband.

 

Another of my colleagues referred to this person, unprompted, before this incedent, as a 'loose cannon,' that is, someone who is unpredictable, liable to cause damage.

 

This man had for some reason best known to himself claimed that a puddle of water on the floor of the laboratory where I taught wa my fault. He kept going back to the Head of Department to repeat his claim - and kept this up not for days or weeks but months. A very bizarre episode. Eventually, it did end. The Head of Department simply said to me, 'You've won.'

 

As for my reputation, when I left science education to take early retirement, I was presented with a certificate which made it clear that the school had a very high view of me:

 

Your work, over the years, is very much appreciated and valued ... you have brought ... a unique insight into the social, ecological and ethical issues that relate to science.

Your colleagues will remember and admire you as a principled person who has been prepared to conduct his private and professional life by the values that he holds dear.

 

The certificate also included this, in connection with the students I taught in the very long period of time I was at the school:

 

'They will always remember you as their Science teacher and how you inspired them to take a life-long interest in science.'

 

During a Sixth Form Charity Week, the Sixth Formers organized a poll for pupils of all age groups. One of the questions was to give the name of their 'Favourite Male Teacher.' There was obviously another question to name their Favourite Female Teacher. I was voted 'Favourite Male Teacher.' This was just a lighthearted event, obviously, but it does show that the view of certain South Yorkshire Police staff (and obviously Church Army staff) isn't the only possible view.

 

I'll give an estimate of my character provided by a judge, based on what he'd witnessed during a court case.

 

The circumstances: I was driving in the Rotherham area when a car overtook my vehicle. He made it clear that he wanted me to stop and I did stop. He said that my vehicle had collided with his vehicle and caused damage.

 

I said that there had been no collision. I found no signs of damage on his vehicle or mine. We exchanged contact details even though it was an absolute certainty that he was making the whole thing up.

 

I received a letter from a law firm and this marked the start of bizarre legal action on his part. Medical reports were sent to me claiming that he and his passenger had had a horrible experience, leaving the driver and his passenger in a state of shock.

 

There were no reports giving evidence of actual physical injury but I was sent a report giving the 'information' that the injuries sustained by both of them were beginning to heal.

 

From time to time, I was informed that there was a change in the legal representation available to them. A new firm would be seeking the redress 'to which they are entitled.'

 

This went on and on and on for over four years but eventually, the case came to court. I had a barrister acting for me, financed by my insurance company, and they had a barrister acting for them.

 

The case was conducted in Rotherham County Court, which is no longer there. The judge gave his verdict. He found in my favour and he stated explicitly that he had found me an honest witness, speaking with a painstaking care for truth. By the time the case came to court, the evidence offered by the pair had altered dramatically. Instead of the traumatic experiences related in the earlier reports, there was mention of a 'slight nudge' from my vehicle. In fact, there was not even a slight nudge. There was no contact at all.

 

This is the result of a procedure where both sides have the opportunity to present a case. The shoddy, demeaning, hideous procedure followed by South Yorkshire Police has been a presumption of guilt.

 

Many Church of England abusers have projected the right image, their testimony has been accepted uncritically, it has been assumed that such people are incapable of falsifying evidence, denying that any offences have been committed. The Church Army people are in a different category but there's the need to examine their claims very carefully. Things are not all they seem.

 

Of course, I was never contacted before the police visit to ask if I had anything to say about the matter. The 'evidence' they used wasn't evidence at all but a simple claim. The whole farcical episode was grossly unjust - but the record of the police computer will not take this into account. It will remain as a statement of fact (if it is still on the computer) It is nothing of the kind.

 

The recent visit of the two Police Constables followed the same pattern: a complaint had been made, no attempt was made to find out what I had to say, there was no attempt to obtain any evidence. A false claim was the substitute for evidence. More denigration of character, of reputation.

 

These are the methods of South Yorkshire Police which I've experienced now that Oliver Coppard is exercising oversight of South Yorkshire Police. This is no improvement on the oversight exercised by Alan Billings, the Police and Crime Commissioner at the time.

 

There's much more detailed material on the Police Information Notice ('Harassment Warning') issued to me detailed material on the context on my page Capability.

 

In early December, 2015, there was a knock at the door, and when I opened it, I found a uniformed police officer there. She'd come to issue a  Harassment Warning. The Harassment Warning was introduced and explained. The  sanctions for infringing the Harassment Warning were made clear, by the officer and the document itself:

 

' ... if the kind of behaviour described here were to continue, then you would be liable to arrest and prosecution.'

 

Crime Ref: K/116966/15

 

What kind of behaviour? What had I done, allegedly?

 

The police call these documents 'Police Information Notices,'  a harmless-sounding term concealing the not-in-the-least harmless reality, a euphemism if ever there was one. This was why I was risking arrest and prosecution, according to South Yorkshire Police:

 

YOU CALLED AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL MESSAGE ON MR  & MRS CONHEENEY LANDLINE CALLING THEM BLUNDERING BUFFOONS.'

 

YOU HAVE ALSO EMAILED MR CONHEENEY AT WORK STATING THE SAME INSULT.

 

(If this had been checked after writing it, an obvious mistake might have been detected. It should have been 'Mr & Mrs Conheeney's landline' not 'Mr and Mrs Conheeney landline.')

 

Is South Yorkshire Police claiming the right to police emails? Is South Yorkshire Police claiming that an email which uses the words 'blundering buffoon' is a reason for threatening an individual with criminal sanctions for using these words? I sent an email to his work address because I didn't have any other email address. The threatening language isn't, surely, the language I used but the language of this disgraceful document.

 

Was I contacted before this document was issued, to find out my own opinion, to hear the arguments and evidence I had available? No.

Did I call Mrs Conheeney a 'blundering buffoon' in the voicemail message or at any other time? No. The claim that I did call her a blundering buffoon  is completely false.

Did I call Mr Conheeney a blundering buffoon in a voicemail message and an email? Yes, I did. In what context?

 

Just in case the police enquiries before the issue of the Harassment Warning failed to include a look at the actual email evidence, an extract from the relevant email to Andrew Conheeney:

'Dear Andrew, I’ve now added a short section to my ‘Capability’ page [I gave a link to the page]. This is simply a first draft. It will be revised and extended. If you find it unfair, by all means contact me. If I think that your objections are valid, I’ll make some necessary changes or remove the section altogether.’

Although the first draft contained the phrase ‘blundering buffoon,’ the entry was modified and the phrase was removed – not at Andrew Conheeney’s insistence, since he never contacted me to object to the entry. (Now that the harassment warning has been issued, with its prominent mention of the phrase, then I saw every reason to reinstate the material, and I've done so.)

 

The tone of this isn't remotely the tone of someone writing with the intent to harass. Suppression of emails, censoring of emails should only be done in cases where malicious intent is overwhelmingly obvious. If South Yorkshire Police wishes to be known as a force which tries to suppress fair-minded emails such as this, then it is making a serious mistake.

I only sent one email to Chris Conheeney and the tone of the email is very, very restrained. An extract:

'In my page on capability, I have addressed many different aspects of the capablity proceedings I experienced at Tapton School, and, I believe, demonstrated beyond any doubt that the capability proceedings were grossly unfair.'

The voicemail message I left gave reasons and arguments why I found the behaviour of Andrew and Chris Conheeney unacceptable - not just unacceptable but disturbing. The phrase 'blundering buffoon' was a tiny part of the message. The tone was moderate, not in the least threatening or harassing.

Charles Moore, writing in 'The Daily Telegraph' (5 December 2016) gives information about a voicemail message which was anything but moderate:

'In the autumn of 2008, for Radio 2's Russell Brand Show, Brand, with Jonathan Ross, rang up Mr Sachs, who had been unable to appear on the show. They left a voice message that Brand had recently "f ....d" his granddaughter. Then they left three more message, joking about her menstruation, imitating Mr Sachs's voice and imagining him saying he would kill himself because of the shame. One message pointed out that grandparents often have photos of their grandchildren playing on a swing, and said that it was in this position that Brand had "enjoyed" her. They shouted "I'll kill you!" into the answering machine and said that they would knock his doordown and "scream apologies into his bottom", They broadcast this, to the acclaim of the programme's producer.' [And without any intervention from the harassment squad of any police force. ]

Was a recording of my message retained, as important evidence? I've been informed, over the phone, that the police officer responsible for the decision to issue the 'Police Information Notice' did listen to the recording. If so, then I'd expect her to have ensured that the recording was kept and not wiped out. Evidence seems to have counted for very little in this case. The warning was issued without bothering about the evidence I could give, which was and is very comprehensive.

So much of this site is about language, responsible use of language, scrupulous use of language. The English dictionary I have and the one I've used for many years is 'Collins English Dictionary.' These are the relevant entries:

Buffoon

1. A person who amuses others by ridiculous or odd behaviour, jokes etc.
2. A foolish person.

Blunder (verb)

1. To make stupid or clumsy mistakes.
2. To make foolish tactless remarks ...
3. To act clumsily, stumble ...
4. To mismanage, botch.

Andrew Conheeney isn't in the least a colourful person. He has never amused me, and it's not likely that he amuses too many other people. The meaning for 'buffoon I had in mind is much closer in meaning to  (2) here. I do regard him as worse than foolish, but the word I used didn't express anything which is worse than foolish. The use of the word was an instance of understatement and not excess. The meaning for 'blundering' here is close to meaning to (1).  I've personal experience of his ability to make stupid mistakes. I'm thinking of mistakes such as disregarding evidence, but there are many more.

Perhaps the Police Person who took the decision to issue this Harassment Warning to me uses a dictionary very different from mine. Perhaps this person's peculiar  dictionary informs her that 'buffoon' is a vile insult and 'blundering' is a vicious description. What she did in all likelihood is pay no attention to significant differences of meaning let alone shades of meaning.
.

The incidents which preceded the issuing of this Police Information Notice - my use of 'blundering buffoon' in a voicemail message and email - are surely trivial.

 

Blackstone’s ‘Guide to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997’ states,

 

‘Deciding what is and is not acceptable behaviour and whether particular incidents are trivial or significant lies at the heart of day to day policing and is also the essence of this Act.’

 

However, the issues raised by the mistaken use of a PIN in this case aren't in the least trivial. They are significant.

 

Chris Conheeney's and Andrew Conheeney's behaviour during the Capability proceedings had significant, not in the least trivial consequences.

 

At a time when vile and vicious insults on a vast scale are traded on Social Media, at a time when outpourings of mindless, poisonous, deeply disturbing rubbish engulf Social Media, South Yorkshire Police made the decision, after inquiring about the issues - inquiring without any attempt at fair-mindedness - to devote some of its scarce resources to this case, the Case of the Blundering Buffoon Allegation. It concerns a term which is mild, not vicious or mindless or poisonous or deeply disturbing. 

 

Their action may have been ridiculous but in this instance, South Yorkshire Police misused its power. This is also a time when large numbers of  people  have no conception at all of the legitimate uses of power in politics and policing and other areas, including people who never resort to outright abuse - people who think that signing an online petition should replace a criminal and civil justice system, or that twitter can be a substitute for an elected government. The political system of a democracy and the police force of a democracy both require informed consent, not ignorant consent or ignorant lack of consent.

 

But politicians and the police have to  be very careful that avoidable mistakes don't feed the frenzied cynicism about politicians and the police. Mistakes, including major mistakes, are inevitable but every care should be taken to avoid them and to do something about them - to lessen their damaging effects if damage can't be undone.

 

A financial balance sheet shows profit and loss, assets and liabilities, credit and debit. The police have enormous achievement to their credit, such as prevention of terrorism and those terrifying times when they confront violent people - I think, for example, of a recent attack in Sheffield by a man with an axe which left a woman police officer with a fractured skull and other injuries and which injured other officers. Their achievement includes too far less dramatic but very important matters, which make a very substantial contribution to the safety and well-being of people in this country.

 

To do everything possible to reduce to the absolute minimum those other cases, the very minor cases, is surely essential. Police forces, like the NHS, can't afford to devote scarce resources to frivolous or very minor ends.

 

When someone from South Yorkshire Police came to my house to warn me, when time and money were spent on interviewing the Conheeney's, when time and money were spent at the police station on planning and recording the fiasco (the police devote vast amounts of time - and money - to record-keeping, often essential, often not in the least essential, at the detailed level expected now),  then this was time and money not spent on far more serious matters.

 

The 'Central Economic Problem' - but it's far more than a purely economic problem - puts it very clearly: there are unlimited needs but the resources available to meet the needs are limited.

 

The failure of South Yorkshire Police here is a more general failure of policing in this country. Police forces across the country show such determination in issuing PIN's and such weakness in deterring and punishing the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

 

Which is more important? Spending time and money on pursuing someone who had used the phrase 'blundering buffoon,' or spending time and money on deterring and punishing actions which have serious, or exceptionally serious consequences? 

 

What if the NHS spent a great deal of time and money on treating very minor injuries, insignificant injuries - ones which could hardly be described as injuries -  possible injuries, or even non-existent injuries, whilst neglecting conditions which are very serious or exceptionally serious? Police forces, South Yorkshire Police included, do something not so very different.

 

The National Health Service, facing unprecedented demands and unprecedented financial crises, may well have to introduce rationing of its services. Harsh realities are having a huge impact. Police forces, however, also confronted by harsh realities, sometimes act as if money is unimportant - public money, that is -  if we're to judge by their readiness to spend money on completely unnecessary PIN's.

 

The page

 

http://londoninvestigates.uk/?p=41

makes it clear that police forces are more than willing to devote scarce resources to such 'problems' as grandparents who send Christmas cards. An extract:

 

'Grandparents who send their grandchildren birthday cards or presents following a family break-up are being threatened with arrest in some instances.

'Police are being called to investigate cases under “harassment” laws involving elderly relations who attempt to maintain contact during acrimonious separations.

'No official figures are currently available but incidents have been reported in Bristol, Suffolk, Norfolk and Hertfordshire amid fears many others are too traumatised to speak out.

'Campaigners said police forces had different ways of dealing with harassment cases and called for a dedicated national policy on the issue.

'One Bristol-based Grandfather, who asked not to be named, was threatened with legal action after sending birthday cards to his “precious” grandson who he had not seen in three years.

“I find it difficult to find the words to express my disbelief and heartbreak that this has happened,” he said.

“I know things have changed but why is it harassment to send a beloved grandchild a birthday or Christmas card?”

'One Suffolk-based grandparent, known as “AJ”, was summoned to an Ipswich police station after she left a birthday present for her granddaughter on the doorstep.

'She added: “Of course there was no case to answer so I walked out, but it was an awful experience.”

'Another Suffolk-based grandparent, “Clare”, suffered a breakdown after she received two “Police Information Notices” after attempting to contact her three year-old grandson.

'She said: “I do understand issues about harassment but we are just a decent family who shouldn’t have patrol cars sitting outside our front door, all because grown-ups have fallen out.”

'Jane Jackson, chairman of the Bristol Grandparents Support Group, said the traumatic experience for many grandparents was “humiliating” and “distressing”.

'She said: “This is not a small issue, it is something that desperately needs looking into.

“It is leaving loving grandparents frightened and suicidal.

“All they want is to let their grandchildren know they have not been forgotten.”

'Mrs Jackson, was also denied contact with her own granddaughter, now 12, in 2007, when her son and his then partner separated, added: “Grandparents are living in fear that if they drop a present at the door then officers will come and march them to the cells.”

'Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative MP for Bristol North West, is leading a campaign for reforms. She said while real harassment was a “very serious issue” and genuine stalking cases had to be dealt with “robustly”, the current situation was “absurd”.

'On the same page, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has this to say about the prevention of stalking:

'Overall, we believe that the use of PINs is more dangerous than helpful. They appear to us to be used as a quick and easy method of appearing to deal with stalking without actually tackling the crime. They are simply leaving victims and perpetrators confused without, very often, having any effect on the stalking behaviour at all.'

 

Another very informative page on harassment warnings - it could be describing my own experience with South Yorkshire Police - is no longer available but retains its relevance. It included this:

 

'Police harassment warnings are a one sided, and often dishonest account of a grievance between two parties. Not only do the police commonly hand them out without ever bothering to confirm the truth of the allegations, they then remain on record where they can cause damage at a later date, preventing you from getting a job or used as evidence to prosecute you.

 

'They are in effect a verdict without trial.

 

'What are harassment warnings?

Harassment warnings – or PINs as the police refer to them (Police Information Notices) are formal written notices given to people who have been accused of causing another alarm and distress. They contain an account of the incident as alleged by the complainant and a warning that any further incidents could result in arrest and prosecution.

 

'Each harassment warning contains details of alleged conduct which can range from exaggeration, wrongful accusation through to outright fantasy.  

 

'The police issue PIN notices – or so they claim – to serve as a ‘reminder’ to stay away from the complainant. The notice will often conclude with blithe assurances that the document isn’t an indication of guilt. However, these warnings become a permanent record on police computers and can be used and disclosed to your detriment. ['Permanent record' is false - but it may take many years before the record is removed.]

 

'How harassment warnings become verdict without trial.

 

Whenever a harassment warning is issued an entry is made on the Police National Database (PND) and a corresponding warning flag is placed against the recipient’s name and address on the Police National Computer (PNC). The PND entry contains a full list of the allegations as they appear on the warning. No rebuttal, explanation or denial of the allegations are entered even if they are given.

 

'Although they do not show on basic criminal record checks, they are disclosed on enhanced criminal record checks. Which means if you are applying for a visa or working in a high security environment then such a warning notice could cause you problems. Worst still harassment warnings can remain on police files for 7 years; often longer if they go unchallenged.

 

' ... in a disagreement between two parties, the police will commonly favour whoever makes the first complaint. If they do bother to check the records in advance of issuing a notice, the mere existence of a harassment notice against somebody’s name is usually all the the evidence the police need to decide who is the victim and who is the aggressor.

 

'The police will tell you that an allegation of harassment has been made about you by a third party. Irrespective of anything you say in your defence, you will be handed the notice and asked to sign it.'

 

One of the questions put to South Wales Police as part of a Freedom of Information Request,

 

http://www.south-wales.police.uk/en/disclosure-log/police-information-notices-pins/

'Is it a lawful/legal requirement for the alleged perpetrator to sign this Police Information Notice when served with it?' (Request Date: October 29, 2014.)

 

The response of South Wales Police to the Freedom of Information Request (18 November, 2014) includes this:

 

The recipient does not have to sign the PIN. If the recipient refuses to sign or accept the PIN the officer would record the refusal. Whether the recipient refuses or accepts possession of the PIN does not discount the PIN being issued.'

 

Or, if you don't sign, it will get you nowhere. We have the power, you don't.

 

Unfortunately for police forces, there's such a thing as the power of publication, including publication on the internet - which can publicize  misuses of police power, including misuse of police power in the issue of Harassment Warnings. Police forces risk ridicule as well as strong criticism when they misuse their power to issue PIN's.

 

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report on Police Information Notices (Fifteenth Report of Session 2014 - 15)

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/

cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/901/901.pdf

 

includes this,

 

'It is vital that police forces provide further guidance and training to officers on the appropriate use of PINs ... Remedial courses should also be given to police officers who have used PINs inappropriately.'

 

South Yorkshire Police has made serious mistakes from time to time. I think I can safely call them serious blunders without risking a second Harassment Warning.

 

The force's failure to protect vulnerable girls in Rotherham is the best-known example of the blunders of the force (although 'blunders' seems too mild a word here). Isn't it comforting to know that at least the force is completely willing to shield two middle-class people in a middle-class suburb from the use of the term 'blundering buffoon,' even if I did use it only about one of them? Isn't it comforting to know that at least the force is completely willing to do that without bothering themselves about the background to this case?

 

Did the police listen to a recording of my voice-mail message left on the phone of Andrew and Chris Conheeney? If they did, they would be in no doubt at all that my tone wasn't in the least abusive.

 

I made the call because I thought I was justified in making the call. The two of them had treated me as a confidante, they'd spoken to me about matters which were intensely personal. Since they'd spoken to me in these terms, a call to them about their abysmal behaviour to me was justifiable. It was at a reasonable time, not in the middle of the night. and there was only one call, not repeated calls.

 

The police obviously considered a recording essential evidence in the case of the 101 operative. It was surely essential evidence in the case of my call to A' and C' Conheeney. If they listen to the recording - assuming they have one - they will find that I never called Chris Conheeney 'a blundering buffoon' and that my tone wasn't aggressive in any way.

 

I have good reason for calling Andrew Conheeney 'a blundering buffoon,' but of course the Police enquiries  before issuing the 'Police Information Notice' will not have included any of this evidence, only the one-sided evidence of Andrew and Chris Conheeney.  I recognize that he is more than a blundering buffoon, that there are other aspects, but I have ample evidence for my claim.

Obviously, if I'm informed that any of the material here is unfair to South Yorkshire Police, then I'll make some necessary changes or remove the section altogether, if the arguments and evidence provided seem valid to me.

 

I'm sure that South Yorkshire Police has made mistakes in this harassment case, and serious mistakes, I don't claim  that South Yorkshire Police is any worse than many another force in its use of Harassment Warnings.  The blame lies primarily with the faulty legislation on Harassment Warnings, which allows any police force in the country to act unjustly, such as the Metropolitan Police, which issued a Police Information Notice to Gareth Davies, a journalist with the 'Croydon Advertiser.' The Guardian gives a compelling account of the case

 https://www.theguardian.com/media/

greenslade/2016/may/17/reporter-exonerated-after-long-battle-with-metropolitan-police

It includes this, ' ... a journalist was being threatened with arrest for doing his job.' The Harassment Warning was eventually withdrawn, but only after very determined efforts (The Independent Police Complaints Commission rejected his appeal against the issuing of the harassment warning, a decision which was manifestly unjust).

 

Comments on David Woodcock of South Yorkshire Police Complaints and Discipline Department.

 

I can't comment on the strengths in general of David Woodcock. For all I know, he may be a remarkable person. All I can do is comment on his strengths as an employee of South Yorkshire Police. He's a member of the Complaints and Discipline Department. He handled my complaint concerning the Harassment Warning so badly that for once, a simple-minded rating system seems completely adequate: hopeless, no stars Other people may have had better experiences.

 

I don't describe him as a 'blundering buffoon' - so there's no need for South Yorkshire Police to come to my door to issue a second Harassment Warning - but I think that to describe him as 'blundering' or rather ‘blundering in his handling of this particular issue’ is fully in accordance with the facts (I'm  sure that to describe Andrew Conheeny as a blundering buffoon is also in accordance with the facts, with my own experience of his ability to stir up trouble and to create problems where none existed previously.)

 

As a result of David Woodcock's blunders - as they seem to me - I've decided to end my policy of not naming any individuals in South Yorkshire Police, starting with him.

 

To make general criticisms of an organization or department, the Complaints and Discipline department in this case, and to avoid mentioning a specific person may give the impression that the whole organization or department is somehow at fault, to some extent. I've no wish to give the impression that very competent, hard working individuals in a department are somehow at fault --better to make it clear that I'm criticizing just one person, or  words and actions of that person, whilst making it clear that my criticisms aren't general ones..

 

This is an email I sent David Woodcock. I'd presented my case to him in detail, and after a long time he informed me that he couldn't take any action, because my complaint wasn't about the conduct of an individual. I informed him that I'd now contact the Divisional Commander - and he gave his opinion, unasked, that I'd get nowhere. He gave his opinion, very freely, unasked, on other matters as well - more of this later. He blundered.

 

I'm not happy with the tone of this email to him - it's stilted, it hasn't the least trace of individuality - but although I'm critical of the phrasing I can't fault the content. This is it:

 

'Dear Mr Woodcock,

'As you'll have gathered, I found the opinions you expressed in our phone conversation earlier today deeply disturbing. To mention just one, your opinion, or rather conviction, forcefully expressed, that the District Commander of the North West Region of South Yorkshire Police would take no action in response to the Police Information Notice issued to me, despite the  arguments and evidence which I've given, such as the fact that the PIN was issued and brought to my door for me to sign without the least attempt to listen to what I had to say. It was issued after listening to one side only. You are completely happy to allow a directive issued with minimal care to restrict my freedom to send reasonable emails, emails which put forward reasonable arguments, with evidence.

'... This series of emails began
with my email to you of 3 / 2 / 2016. I sent this email, and subsequent emails, under the impression that the department of which you are a part was the appropriate department to receive my complaint, which wasn't primarily a complaint against an individual.  That email, and the many others, should have left you in no doubt whatsoever that my complaint was broadly-based. It was only yesterday that you informed me that you couldn't take any action, since your department was only concerned with complaints against individuals. A very great deal of my time has been wasted. You ought to have informed me soon after 3 / 2 / 2016 that the District Commander was the appropriate person to address, and not yourself - but without any prejudicial comments about my chances of success when I did contact the District Commander.

'This is only to touch upon a few of the issues which are raised by this case.'

 

In that same phone conversation, he said that if he'd been in the same position as the woman who issued the Harassment Warning, he would have issued a Harassment Warning too. (This didn't make me think any the better of him.) He also recommended this course of action: I should speak to this woman, and to the junior policewoman who came to my house to issue the warning, as a way forward.

 

This was a ridiculous suggestion. I'd made it clear that I wanted the harassment warning revoked and neither of these people had the power to do that. Strong leadership involves strong support for subordinates, for people just starting on their career in the police service, or the army, or in some other sphere. Questions from me to these people would necessarily have involved pressure for these people. In the case of the woman who decided to issue the harassment warning, I wouldn't have been sympathetic at all. In the case of the woman who came to my door to issue the warning, I saw no reason to subject her to any pressure at all.

 

I decided it would be worthwhile to speak to both of these people, just to find out more, as a student of human nature and not just someone determined to correct an injustice, but I got nowhere. Neither person agreed to speak with me. A request to South Yorkshire Police for the name of the woman who issued the Harassment Warning went unanswered. David Woodcock's earnest advice was ridiculous. He was mistaken in thinking that both these people would agree to talk.

 

If David Woodcock really does think that the use of the words 'blundering buffoon' justifies this expenditure of time and money, he has to answer the objections. If a policewoman is sent on this ridiculous errand, to warn me about my use of the phrase 'blundering buffoon,' to attend to their demand that there should be repercussions for me for the slightest of slights, then this policewoman isn't available for any other duties during that time, including duties which might actually protect society against the dangers and threats it faces or which might actually help individuals facing dangers and threats.

 

The police should have better things to do than sparing a former head of department (Chris Conheeney) the bother of informing a former subordinate (me) why she chose to make general criticisms of me without ever informing me what those criticisms were about. Or sparing someone whose history of doing me down on the flimsiest of pretexts is blatant (Andrew Conheeny).