Tim Ashton Esq.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH IPCC Ref 2007/010564
South Wales Police and Metropolitan Police
Further to your e-mail of 1st August 2007 I will first attempt a summary:
1. On the 19th January 2004 before the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council in London the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
(RCVS) were Respondents in my Appeal from being removed from the
veterinary register on the 29th May 2002.
2. The RCVS had produced evidence by forging witness statements and presenting them to me as if originals.
3. The RCVS falsified witness addresses in order that I could not find them.
4. The RCVS withheld identities of favourable witnesses, interviewed
by their lay staff, including all contemporaneous statements of all
5. The RCVS, in 2002, falsified information by way of plain verbiage
relying on the decisions of a mentally ill, retired High Court judge,
Sir John , deliberately given the position of Legal Advisor to the RCVS
hearing. His decision was relied upon at the Court of Appeal to prevent
me from having any witnesses of fact, also contrary to law, relating to
their ‘charges' (11 minor convictions, 5 of which were motoring).
6. The RCVS relied upon these convictions to have me struck off on
the pretext, told by their lying barrister, Alison foster QC, to the
Downing Street entourage, because I had ‘disrespect for authority'.
7. The RCVS obtained policemen to attend the hearing , overnight, on
the pretext they were defence witnesses when the Court of Appeal had
already ordered none of them were allowed.
8. In October 2006, for the first time, the RCVS admitted being in
the possession of favourable statements for me but they had not been
disclosed as they were ‘believed' to be ‘privileged' [qualified] between
their client, the South Wales Police and their Penningtons, Solicitors,
Cannon Street, London.
9. Similar statements were withheld from me, even from my own
veterinary clients, when the vast RCVS investigation team had descended
upon South Wales.
10. The RCVS were disclosed police confidential records of my
dealings with the police, the complainants in 2001 to have me struck
11. Police records available but not all revealed, contained unlawful
conduct by a small handful, to begin with, of police driven only by
vengeance following their loss of 130 prosecutions based on harassment.
12. Police caused around 16 false imprisonments.
13. No veterinary surgeon has ever or will ever again, been subjected
to such sustained unlawful conduct for such trumped up nonsense.
14. Penningtons, acting for an honourable profession, conspired to pervert the course of justice from day one.
15. Penningtons even attempted to introduce the usual ingredients to
have someone struck off, namely, DISHONESTY and/or MISUSE OF DRUGS
and/or DRUNKENESS and/or MALPRACTICE but failed on the lot.
16. As you are only too well aware these lawyers relied on the
‘Memorandum of Understanding between Chiefs of Police and the Law
Society' to guarantee them immunity to prosecution
You refer to my numerous detailed complaints in the past about the
South Wales Police shuffled and binned by the Police Complaints
They were a total waste of time and were there for political purpose only
Just why the IPCC is different and not there just to
hoodwink the general public into believing there is an ‘effective
remedy' only you know?
The current scale of unlawfulness in the judiciary will never be reduced by the IPCC
I will throw you just 2 complaints for starters:
Complaint A) relates to the above 16 marked paragraphs.
Both the Metropolitan and South Wales Police have refused to properly investigate or request ‘further and better particulars'.
I have received no replies from the Metropolitan Police at all.
The recorded delivery letter of complaint to Cannon Street Police Station was returned, marked ‘unknown'!
On the 6th October2006, other police
stations in London, Scotland Yard and Paddington, were visited and both
refused to even write anything down with one referring me back to the
That same complaint was forwarded to the South Wales Police who have responded receipt and no more.
Complaint B) This is a complaint of Abuse of Process part of which is set out in my letter of complaint of the 27th July 2007 delivered to the Barry, South Wales, police station. Their reply of 7th August 2007 indicates no action will be taken. Am I expected to be surprised?
All dates of my communications and police
identifications can be supplied by them by South Wales Police ref
CJ/KE/32/M1.119/2007 of 7th Aug 2007 letter from Bridgend HQ.
I will not be holding my breath.
Maurice Kirk BVSc
Barry Animal Health Centre CF62 8AZ