An ex-Lancashire police officer, (and ex-Magistrate) Paul Brooks, ‘read out’ an email sent to him from Lancashire police in an audio-recorded meeting.
The comment has been discovered in a heavily redacted Subject Access Request (SAR), the comment reads
It is unwise to become involved in any social media interaction with PP. His posts are rarely accurate or reflected in the context. PP will always record phone calls and may post on the Tube rarely in entirety or in context
[PP refers to Paul Ponting]
Lancashire police sent Brooks this comment in an email, it is alleged to be a misuse of personal data. Police sent this to Brooks at a time when Brooks was himself reported for the crime of Malicious Communications to Lancashire police for an offence against Mr Ponting. A crime now admitted by Brooks.
Brooks, who was the Chairman of the masonic run charity, (North West Blood Bikes), has admitted to unlawfully harassing Mr Ponting and posting a malicious article about him. The admission was tactfully made after the statute of limitations for the crime he committed had elapsed, therefore Brooks cannot be prosecuted.
Lancashire police refused to investigate the crime committed by Paul Brooks, and instead, sent malicious and intentionally misleading information to Brooks about Mr Ponting.
Paul Brooks resigned from the Judiciary after the Judiciary was preparing an investigation into his criminal conduct.
A legal challenge is in place to get a copy of the audio recording. The North West Blood Bike charity is refusing to release it, it is alleged that they are concealing information which is a crime under Section 173(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998. They are being represented by Mark Rankin of Markel Law who is alleged to be assisting them to conceal the recording.
Mark Rankin has now made a groundless allegation that the admission by Paul Brooks to committing a criminal offence was ‘under duress’.
Whilst I accept the Charity Commission is unlikely to take this a high priorty but given the Trustees have a legal obligation as set out in the Charity Act to perform their duties with due diligence. Furthermore the fact they are using Charity funds for the expressed intent to protect themselves fund givers might take adim view on those resources being used for a purpose other than the purpose they were given for. Whilst it is hightly likely the CC will not open an investigation they should at the very least communicate with the Charity that concerns about their actions have been raised, they will remind them of their legal responsibilty. The costs incurred in using legal services can be considerable and specific details can and should be used to demonstrate to fundgivers what there money is likely being used for. Fundgivers can still give funds but would be wise to only do so with the provision that those funds are ‘Restricted’ (ring fenced) and must not be used for administration purposes where legal costs over and above normal operating costs are incurred.