a friend of Dave is fraught with danger. Not because of the
but because of the Authorities. Their desire to "Get
Courtney" means that they
tend to go for any of his friends as well. Here's the story of
Les Hill, a long-time
friend of Dave, who is being victimised by the police:
On the 25th April 2003
Les Hill was visited at home by a man dressed in jeans and t-shirt,
one D. McCay who said he was a bailiff from "Collect
Services". McCay said he was there with regard to a parking fine issued by
Reading Borough Council. The car in question had once been owned
by Les' wife, but the date on the ticket was after she had sold
it on. Les explained this and said that they had already
explained it to the council. Les says McCay got very abusive,
refused to show them ID and that, in the end, they gave him a
cheque just to get rid of him and then dialed 999 to report the
matter to the police. Les asked the police to arrest McCay for
public order offences. Now, I know Les and he is not a
man with a temper or a violent person and would go out of his
way to avoid trouble, so I was frankly surprised to here that
shortly after, McCay returned and the
police turned up and arrested Les for allegedly damaging McCay's
car. A charge that Les vehemently denies.
can read Les' account of the incident HERE.
Apart from all this there are 3 important things that need to be added:
1: My right arm was totally incapacitated, as I was only 36 hours out of an arm operation to cure a severe tendonitis in my right elbow. My arm was heavily bandaged, and in a sling. Plus I was still feeling the effects of the general
2: We have a taped telephone conversation with Collect Services that clearly states that with regard to the same bloke "managers are looking into other cases relating to the same enquiries..." also "there have been other enquiries that have been made by other people as well". His own company slipped up and admitted all this but we were told we were not allowed to use this in evidence.
3: My own next door neighbour has said that even though they know the truth they will change their story and side the police as their daughter is going into the police force and they don't want to ruin her chances by siding a friend of Dave Courtney's. (Yet their son couldn't wait to meet him when Dave was at my house).
says that he asked the police to take a statement from his wife,
but that it was a month before they bothered and that
compromised her statement in the eyes of the court (you
can read Lisa's statement here). Les was
taken to court, charged with causing criminal damage and found
guilty. You can read Les'
legal representative's Argument HERE. There was a lot of
evidence that wasn't brought to his attention at the time. Les
complained to the Police
Complaints Commission and wrote
to his MP, David Rendel. He decided to appeal.
he goes on to say (6th July 2004):
Here is an update on the situation that I have spoken to you about. Last Monday I had to drop my appeal case against the guilty verdict for criminal damage that I did not commit. This was because everyone realised that
no matter what was proved I was not going to be allowed to win. Even my own barrister said it would be very difficult because of the way the police had "chosen to investigate the matter".
On Tuesday I was called by Mr Frank Squire from the police standards department to arrange a meeting with regard to my police complaint.
When he came out the following day he was less than concerned about the way PC Ian Cooke, and PC Moran had dealt with the situation. He openly stated that "the officers had done nothing wrong and although he appreciated that my case had been clearly pre judged by the officers and yes they had clearly manipulated the evidence so that I had no chance of winning". He went on to admit that David McCay, the bailiff from collect services had made an initial 999 call to the police 21 minutes before the second. When I stated that this information had never been disclosed and if it had then it would have fully exposed Mr McCay as setting me up (not McCay or the police even mention the first call in their statements), I was told that they
knew this and that was why it had never been exposed as "relevant to the case".
Mr Squire went on to say that it was fine for an officer to manipulate a case by the way he chooses to investigate and it is also ok to not mention relevant information to a case. This includes under oath.
The conclusion was of course that there was nothing they could do.
However when I called my solicitor he said outright that this is outrageous, he went on to say that in his opinion "this has been done because you are friends with Dave Courtney".
As everyone knows however there is no way back now for me to expose all this apart from Dave's web site.
can read Les' letter
dropping the appeal here, but he scores some good points.
it doesn't stop there. On the 7th July I received this from Les:
Yesterday (Tuesday 6th July) I stopped at a local retail park to buy my kids some sports shoes etc. As normal I parked in one of the duel bays for disabled and parent and baby.
When I came out of the shop I had been clamped. Funnily though, within one minute a police officer just happens to be coming by. Within 30 seconds after that the clamper arrives (what a coincidence !!!!!). I was told that he would not remove the clamp unless I paid £85.00 or £90.00 with a credit card. I explained that I was parked quite rightly and was told that this had now changed and I had to pay the money. He then pointed to a sign which did not come into force for two weeks yet said it was valid. The police officer did nothing. He said that he could not get involved but would arrest me if I remained angry or tried to remove the clamp. My children were hot and my 7 month old daughter was desperate for a feed and screaming her head off. The clampers response was
"pay me the money." Shortly after this a second police officer pulled up. When he was told what was happening he made a call to the clamping company and then said "there is nothing I can do, you'll have to pay, but your Dave Courtney's friend anyway aren't you?". The clamper heard this and didn't believe it, saying "I'm sure" and "course you
are". Then I gave him my phone and said dial the number. At this he became willing to remove the clamp but was told not to by the police (I thought they said they couldn't get involved) and that I would have to pay the money. Suddenly the clamper returned to his former arrogant self and said he didn't care about the children I had to pay the money.
If anybody wants to make a comment: the clampers name is Lee (refused to give his last name) He drives a White Vauxhall Reg number OY51OUB, Mobile :07788 503690.
Parking Control Management
Tel: 01753 512603
My baby was now hysterical so the money was paid. Once again the boys in blue showed their true colours. When I pulled out I left them all laughing together. What more can I say, apart from, what's next?
Les. What next???
My wife Lisa was "interviewed over a possible overpayment" for 6 hours. She is bailed to re appear on the 4th October. My ten year old
son's sim card has gone missing yet was not listed as taken. Even my childrens libary cards were taken. My wife's documents over the house have been taken even though that is illigal as all solicitors letters are "privvy". All this was done infront of the children.
update from Les:
Just to give you an update, Lisa is having every door slammed firmly shut whenever she tries to get to the bottom of what's going on. She has now gained the services of an excellent organisation called the Reading Community
Welfare Rights organisation. These people are linked to the citizens advise bureau, but specialize in benefit issue's only. They have the same access to information as a solicitor and use all the same books and software for there info etc.
They wrote on Lisa's behalf as they want to know the extent of the supposed overpayment as they feel that there have been some serious errors made on the governments side.
Yet even they received a phone call from the inland revenue refusing them any information or figures with regard to the allegations.
They say that they've never come across this attitude before. This in effect makes Lisa helpless to defend herself up until she has to return to Newbury police Station in October. Yet they called Lisa's solicitor demanding more information. A little one-sided I feel.