Tim Ashton Esq.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH                                                                  IPCC Ref  2007/010564


South Wales Police and Metropolitan Police

Dear Sir,

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 witnesses contacted.
  • 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 off.
  • 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 Authority.

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 RCVS court! 

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.

Yours sincerely,  


Maurice Kirk BVSc,    Barry Animal Health Centre CF62 8 AZ