Count the lies in Police Lawyers Closing Submissions                           BS614159        

No wonder I was never allowed a jury

The lawyer defence team for the Defendants Skeleton Closing Submissions, to defend the 1992 -2002 bullying by the South Wales Police, have printed out such a thoroughly misleading account, in well over thirty or so, so far heard, of a hundred or more appalling incidents of criminal conduct, by three Chief Constables, no less, obviously requiring an outside  intervention.

 13 06 24 Kirk v SWP Defendant's Closing Submissions.pdf 

Talk about blatant Common Purpose, Masonic Plot and the New World Order agenda!

 Is it not time for us to go away and read the small print of political parties such as UKIP?

At least no one in South Wales can say they have not been warned of things yet to come.

 The countless written lies that are so fraudulent and so contrary to what is on court transcript, witness statements and 20 years of stored Claimant court exhibits, the matter should not be left to the HM discretion of a single judge but be reported to an outside police force immediately.

Truth Will Out

Counter submissions, the actual facts rather than a fairy tale, will be published later after my proposed visit to Avon and Somerset Police with the complaint.

[Much of evidence, contradicting these defence submission, is already on the last three months of blogs]

(My telephone number for more is 07907937953)


SAMPLE of Claimant's closing submissions



2nd Action Paragraph 7 

Yet another account riddled with pre confirmed lies due to the usual information, available to the lawyers, of any aircraft movement in a controlled air space

Para 295

No, not true the helicopter flew double that distance

No, not ‘suspected’, police already knew the Claimant was pending the successful Taunton Crown court appeal requiring no evidence needed to be given. (difficult not to be prosecuted for 'low flying' when landing in a farmer's field for lunch.

Para 301

This outrageous account of launching a hugely expensive helicopter just to assess who the pilot was!!!

All it required was to look in log books of aircraft/pilots onboard/ ring ATC Gloucester for records/ get ATC Cardiff to ask or simply send the Llantwit Major’s police car two miles to landing strip and enquire after the aircraft had landed.

Police identifying the pilot as being in the front ‘pilot’s seat was a joke, in itself, assuming a WW2 J3 L4 is usually piloted so. Which seat did I fly from when I then flew her to Australia, solo and stuffed with fuel cans?

No, they kept no safe distance and in fact, it was all very dangerous, as close as the length of the court room, plus a foot or two.

Both pilots confirmed it was illegal, inside the 500ft Air Navigation Order rule. unless the police had a justifiable reason to put so many lives at stake?

Interesting how the ATC Cardiff asked G-KIRK to orbit until the police helicopter arrived. We could have diverted and landed, quite easily, at the Cardiff police heliport, in time we were made to wait, if the matter was so very urgent.

Paragraph 303

No. The radar facilities at Cardiff cannot measure distances between such aircraft to ensure safety

No, not true. To prove the point of just how dangerous it was the two helicopter crew both had to admit they each lost sight of the cub for sufficient time to get her an imaginary five second burst from a WW1 Lewis machine gun, ‘up their tail’.

 The CAA should have investigated the police dangerous prank but I was not going to report another pilot simply being black mailed by a bunch of bullys sitting at HQ calling the shots.

Paragraph 306

All part of the police bullying, harassment and ‘money no object’ mentality, following the Claimant only because:

I)      being blamed for their Chief Inspector’s daughter' miscarriage,

ii)   ‘sour grapes’ Guernsey asking to ‘put the knife in’ as it carried far too an embarrassing consequence if the outstanding ‘open arrest warrant’ for the Claimant’s was to be implemented

iii)   and not let us not forget their anger of their recent string of lost prosecutions, against the Claimant, ‘stitched up’ yet again, by too many, proving malice.