The Ccok Report setting people

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

SETTING PEOPLE UP

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

KEN SMITH AND HIS SON HAVE BEEN VICTIMISED AND DESTROYED

Edited June 10, 2008 by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

SHOULD YOU NOT MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE POLICE ABOUT THE RSPB AND CHRIS NEAL FOR ILLEGALLY INCITING PEOPLE TO TAKE ILLEGALLY WILD BIRDS OF PREY AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TAKE WILD BIRDS BY FALSELY CLAIMING THERE IS MARKET FOR SUCH BIRDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

 

 

 

THE BIG QUESTION TO ASK IS THE ABOVE LETTER ANYTHING TO DO WITH KAREN BRADBURY AND JONES BEING EITHER FORCED TO LEAVE THE RSPB OR BEING MOVED FROM THE HEAD OF WILDLIFE CRIME INVESTIGATION.

[Dexter... 0]

Verry interesting information Del...

 

 

Dexter...

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

NOT AS INTERESTING AS YOUR PICTURE

[Dexter... 0]

NOT AS INTERESTING AS YOUR PICTURE

 

 

My kind of girl! :tongue4:

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

PLEASE READ THE COOK REPORT CASE AND THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THE RSPB AND THE PROGRAMME HAVE SOME QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.

 

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF SOMEONE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY KILLED ONE OF KEN’S BIRDS SO THAT THE RING COULD BE SWITCHED ONTO ANOTHER BIRDS.

 

Publishing evidence.

‘At the beginning of the raid on Mr. Canning’s home he was told that the video footage of the raid on his home would ‘not be published’, by Shorrock and Bradbury in front of PC White and Mr. and Mrs. Canning. Had Mr. Canning of known that the RSPB would release the video tape to the ‘Cook Report’ television programme [bird Bandits] and the ‘Discovery Channel’ he would not have allowed himself to be filmed helping the RSPB and being put in a grossly untrue and negative light. The ‘Cook Report’ showed the video of the raid on Mr. Canning’s before his trial on national television [17 August 1993 and there was a follow up programme].

 

The programme stated untruthfully in Roger Cook’s voice that Mr. Canning was trying to sell 14 peregrine falcons to an undercover agent called Chris Neal. This programme effected Mr. Canning’s chance of receiving a fair trial. It was true that someone from the ‘Cook Report’ did try to buy some birds from Mr. Canning but he was told that Mr. Canning did not sell birds; he gave them to his friends. This is why the ‘Cook Report’ failed to buy any birds from Mr. Canning. The programme then stopped trying to buy birds from Mr. Canning and bought two birds from another innocent man called Ken Smith who the RSPB and The Cook Report also lied about. [see below]

 

Despite the fact that Mr. Canning would not sell the under cover agent any birds the programme still incorrectly stated that Mr. Canning had offered to sell the agent 14 Peregrine Falcons. If this had been true then the ‘Cook Report’ would have been able to show the fact on their programme to expose Mr. Canning as they did to others. Furthermore, the precise same video footage that appeared on the ‘Cook Report’ was played to the jury at Mrs. Canning’s trial. Mr. Canning was shown clearly both times in his stable block next to his young peregrine falcons. Clearly, Mr. Canning was treated as though he was guilty before his conviction. This fact must have influenced the jury at his trial. Furthermore, the two peregrine falcon chicks that the police claim came from Kielder in 1992 appeared in the Evening Chronicle with a large colour photograph and a statement saying that Mr. Canning had stolen the birds from Catcleuth Reservoir at Kielder [see page 88 of enclosed documents]. No subsequence mention was made that the birds were returned to Mr. Canning after he supplied the blood from the female peregrine falcon that produced the chicks in question. This again must have had a negative impute on the jury. Cogently this is not the correct way to handle evidence. The use of the video and the photograph in the Evening Chronicle was highly prejudicial to Mrs. Canning defence therefore, it should not have been allowed.’

 

Note that both the members of the RSPB involved in the Cook Report either left the RSPB or were removed from their position in the RSPB. The video footage is available on request to show that the bird was switched by the stars of the Cook Report. I am in the process of putting the footage on You Tubes so prepared to be informed, prepared to be shocked.

 

The website with all the facts of the Myatt, Burden, Robb, Smith and Canning cases will be up and running with more detail soon including how the Cook Report lied about the Canning case.

 

Also, note that Karen Bradbury who was the main RSPB star in the Cook Report not only left the RSPB after many years service she worked with Peter Robinson at the time of the Watchdog Programme. Peter Robinson was forced to leave the RSPB due to the Watchdog Programme showing the DOE and the RSPB conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

 

The crimes of the RSPB and Animal Health go back many years. See below.

The Watchdog programme and setting Sweetman up by DofE and the RSPB.

________________________________________

 

file 1

file 2

file 3

 

Ken Smith

ADDRESS REMOVED

 

You will have a letter from my solicitor regarding us withdrawing proceedings against Central TV and RSPB and are no doubt wondering why.

 

We had got expert evidence from scientists in their individual fields, one proved that video tapes shown on the programme had been electronically altered, a second proved the same with audio tapes and soundtrack, and that none were original material as claimed by Central throughout the past six years. A third proved that what is supposed to be a bird that I supplied was in fact films of three different birds. It also proved that the bird that left me and was delivered to Neal was switched for another one sometime between delivery and DNA sampling, which of course is why the tests showed a non-relationship. Clearly the defence were in a sticky position and in fact only two weeks earlier we were asked to drop the RSPB who were claiming that they played no part in making the programme. We of course refused.

 

From thereon things happened very quickly. On Thursday 28th Oct. the Barrister reporting for the Legal Aid Board faxed his opinions to them and went on holiday. His opinions were seriously flawed. The Legal Aid then withdrew their funding and informed our solicitors by fax at 4.45pm, closing their offices at 5.00pm at which the decision maker went on holiday for two weeks. This left us without legal representation for the pre-trial review timed for 10.30 the following morning. In Court the judge ruled on the evidence and it was all going our way until he decided that, although there was no limit of time on presenting the evidence of the expert witness's, he thought that it should have been submitted not less than four weeks before trial. In which case we were one day too late Very convenient!

 

Without funding or legal representation we took the only option and dropped the case! RSPB and CTV both volunteered to cover their own costs, which we are led to believe are around a quarter million each. Throughout this action the RSPB had tried every conceivable way of removing our legal aid funding, and constantly threatened to suit us for their costs. As a charity they could simply fill in a form and have their entire costs reimbursed from the Legal Aid fund, but for some reason they chose to pay their own! Wonder why?

 

We hoped to achieve some form of justice but privately always thought that political influence and whispers in the corridors of power would never allow us to get the RSPB in Court. In less than 45 minutes it was all over! We neither won or lost, the only consolation being that we fought for our principles and left them with a bloody nose. We know that individual heads have rolled along the way but the main body survived with it's reputation still intact.

 

Many, many thanks for standing up for us, it is appreciated more than words can say.

 

 

 

Ken Smith Hillcroft

ADDRESS REMOVED

 

STATEMENT MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOVEMBER 9th 1993

 

Dear Mr. Lewis,

Re- my request for data contained in my file at DOE, Tollgate House. I think the time has come to explain in full the reasons for the request and draw the registrar’s attention to what I believe are contraventions of the Data Protection Act which has had serious implications for me and the survival of my business.

 

Central Television and the RSPB were jointly involved in the making of a Programme screened on August 17th 1993 called 'Cook Report’ followed by an Update on August 31st. Both programmes allege illegal possession of wild birds. A warrant was issued to RSPB on 18th August 1993 and a search made of my premises, no evidence was found to validate the allegations. The search, was conducted by RSPB in the presense of independent witnesses, filmed on videotape, timed and dated.

 

During both programmes and the search there are several instances where it is clear that RSPB and/or Central TV have information which can only have come from my files held at Tollgate House. Karen Bradbury of RSPB clearly states the ease by which she can access my data. Enclosed is a transcript of comments made on both programmes and during the search. Also enclosed is a letter from Lynne Garvy, DOS, confirming that the RSPB do have access to my data. I do not believe this is correct (the RSPB are not a legal agency such as police) and it was certainly not given with my written permission. If it is correct then it prompts the question of exactly how relevant is the information, evidence etc required to be since according to Karen Bradbury's comments data is available just for the asking.

 

I have asked for confirmation of two phone calls I made to DOE, Miss Millard did confirm by phone that they are logged on computer. The calls I refer to were made by me to report certain circumstances long before I became aware of any TV programme. In a call to Nick Williams, Chief Wildlife Inspector, he stated that he was ' aware of some journalistic investigation'. This comment alone would suggest some measure of awareness of the implications of- passing data to the programme makers.

 

It is known that a review is underway with the possibility of dispensing with much of the wildlife sales controls and the registration scheme. It is also known that the RSPB would prefer to see controls increased rather than decreased. It may be assumed that a decrease would possibly cost jobs among DOE employees. Perhaps it is by accident that the data was given very shortly after I expressed my opinions of the registration scheme as being too expensive and unnecessary, and, perhaps it is just coincidence that the programme was made at a time when 'proof is sought in certain quarters to show a requirement to strengthen the scheme and it's controls.

 

Birds passed on to a new keeper in June, reported to the police and then to DOE including a phone call to Nick Williams, are at the moment still registered to me. These happen to be the very birds used on the programme, the one <omitted from my data are. My last letter to you, and the ones which according to my data came from eggs logged as infertile or all failed. In fact the rings are brought by the wildlife inspector who witnesses them being fitted, this is not recorded.

 

In conclusion I should perhaps add that intruders were removed from the area where I

Keep hatching eggs on two occasions, and intruders were removed from the brooder room where the young birds are kept while awaiting ringing on three seperate occasions. Nighttime prowlers around the aviary where adult breeding birds are kept were reported to the police on two separate occasions. Obviously, anyone with an interest in damaging my business or reputation would find their task easier to accomplish if armed with information on laying dates, hatching dates, ringing dates etc. These intrusions occurred in my absence and were reported to me by security at a later date, the independent witness is prepared to make a statement if necessary.

 

Your’s sincerely

 

Ken

 

House Of Commons S,A.Smith

London SV1A OAA 1, Hull Road,

Hornsea

Humberside HU18 1RL

10th November 94

.

I have followed with interest the lobbying scandal which has become known as 'cash for questions', particularly as I learned in May that a 'controversial edition' (I thought they all were) of the programme 'Cook Report' had been shelved on the orders of senior management. More recently, the ethics of a certain newspaper editor who seems wholly convinced that the end justifies the means, whether the 'end' is a truthful representation or otherwise, have mirrored my own case.

 

I wrote to you 5th Dec 1993, 30th Jan 1994 and relayed some of my own fears regarding the Cook Report programme screened 17th August 1993. entitled 'Bird Bandits' in which the programme makers sought to justify their claims of illegal taking, smuggling, laundering operations of wild birds, and the after-math of anti-publicity, and so-called investigations. The 'end result so-far being that I've last a business known as Park Rose Owl Sanctuary & Woodland Conservation.

 

As you advised I had contacted a Solicitor, I made complaints to the Local Authority Ombudsman, Data Protection Registrar, and Police. There are still certain issues worrying me that I cannot seem to resolve, and I put my trust in you to try and influence a resolution on my behalf, as I know you have done in the past for my father Mr Ken Smith.

 

The present situation is such that both my father, and subsequently myself were reported by the RSPB for consideration of prosecution, between 22nd and the 30th of November 1993. The evidence they presented was that of the programme, which relied heavily on the DNA samples taken from birds purported to have been bred from my fathers birds, other than this the programme produced no evidence, except that of innuendo & falsehood.

 

Both my father and I reported criminal activities and made allegations against individuals during the early summer of 1993 to Humberside Police. Most were not investigated fully, if at all, the only one that was investigated was proven against a man whom I now believe to be the RSPB's informant, These incidents at the time seemed isolated, they occurred prior to any knowledge of Cook Report programme's investigation. Following the screening of the programme, and the illegal warrant sworn out and served by the RSPB, the picture began to emerge, I made further complaints to SGT J.Arp Humberside Police (Hornsea) who told me 'because the RSPB are using Humberside in this, you would be better off seeking another force' . This of course I did, and duly approached DS Merchant of York CID, who was willing to take on the investigation, but he was curtailed by his superiors, He informed me 'It is down to Humberside really because I've had a word with my inspector and he says not to tread on Humbersides toes in this.' I was referred to DS Mabbett of Humberside CID (Beverley). DS Mabbett advised we make our complaint through a Solicitor. All this took weeks of being pushed from one to another and back again. But the complaint of contravention of various acts by various individuals and groups acting both alone and in conspiracy, was eventually made in writing from our Solicitor and ourselves on 6th December 1993, The Police informed us only that they would be in touch and would require our evidence in due course, It was specifically requested that I hold onto my evidence.

 

By January 1994 there had been no contact by the Police, but in a phone call 1 made to DS Mabbett he said ' I am awaiting instruction from Crown Prosecution Service, who are treating your allegations as counter allegations because the RSPB made theirs first,' and a meeting of 'interested parties' namely DOE, RSPB, East Yorks Borough Council, had been held at the request of CPS just prior to Christmas (93) to discuss things across the table which cannot otherwise be written down. The ethics of this seems to me to be highly questionable, as indeed does the treatment of our complaint as a counter-allegation, when our initial reports to the police of suspected criminal activity by the very parties aforementioned were made up to six months earlier. DS Mabbett also informed me he had been instructed by CPS to re-investigate the RSPB's claims. A voluntary interview was given by both my father and I in March 94. It was suggested that this would conclude his investigation. Nothing further was heard and DS Mabbett moved office and job, the matter was then passed to DC Holland of Hornsea Police. At no stage was evidence of our complaint requested, or indeed to my knowledge investigated, I did however take it upon myself to present all the evidence in June this year, it is an extensive file of over 1,000 pages, incorporating video, audio -transcript, and photographic material to substantiate the complaint.

 

The RSPB's investigations officer has since officially 'resigned' from her post, it is believed by most in the bird fraternity that she was forced to go, amid allegations of her perjuring evidence. When I informed the DC at Hornsea he was first informed by the RSPB headquarters that she was still in office, they were clearly lying but I supported my claim that she had gone with a letter from the RSPB's Chief Executive. I an aware that during the Police enquiry, which re-covered the RSPB's own investigation, into allegations raised by the programme makers (which includes the RSPB) that statements made regarding dates, motives for meetings, documentary 'evidence' etc. substantiated the facts which our evidence reveals, and highlights the RSPB's evidence as pure invention.

 

The motive for this RSPB campaign was the Parliamentary intention to de-regulate (UK Wildlife Sales Controls. The RSPB lobbied for, and helped frame this particular section of the Act. They did not want to see it de-regulated.

 

The DOE wildlife departments stood to lose jobs as a result of it, and this has now proved to be the case.

 

In 1991, when the de-regulation was being discussed, the DOE & RSPB jointly funded DMA -research into certain Birds of Prey. Fears of how this and information exchanges may be abused at some stage in the future were reported the following year CB.Byles C & A Birds). Those fears have been realised in this instance. For example, Dr David Parkin whose research was funded by DOE/RSPB is now used by them to profile DNA, and to act as expert witness in their prosecutions. It appears that Dr David Parkin and his associates have the unique advantage of supplying inarguable evidence, since no other expert exists in this Country to counter the prosecutions claims with regard to specific birds of prey. Birds represented on the programme as being those that came from my father were certainly not those that left his possession. Transportation of blood samples taken for DNA profiling lacks professional continuity, and further to this, six distinctly separate i.e. unrelated, samples were submitted to CPS as evidence pertaining to collection from three birds. One bird was allegedly killed by the RSPB in its pursuit of sample collection, another was released by the programme makers without independent samples being made available.

 

To my knowledge, none of the birds, or blood samples was retained for independent identification.

 

The DoE have recently confirmed that data supplied in their original- disclosures was inaccurate; however, they tailed to state the precise nature of those inaccuracies, or offer any reason for it, or supply the amended data. The CPS are therefore in receipt of data evidence known to be inaccurate. I have pointed out seventy two gross data errors to the data protection registrar, all of which have been made since the screening of the programme and any one of which could leave me at risk to prove my possession lawful, Under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1961. the onus of proof lays with the accused to show his possession is lawful, this is at least the reverse of the spirit of British Justice, and one that the DOE/RSPB are constantly at pains to remind us of the Countryfile Strictly for the Birds 'Sam Garside case' s Mr Joplin MP.

 

The RSPB have also supplied data disclosures, which are grossly inaccurate, this has also been pointed out to the data protection registrar by my father and I await amended disclosures of that information, I again assume the CPS also awaits them. The information supplied by the RSPB is not a full disclosure, and as the information so far supplied is grossly wrong, I wonder what information may have been supplied by then to CPS that is also grossly inaccurate. The End Justifies the Means - Re-Parliamentary debate of last week.

 

My request to you concerns two main points:

1, The question of - who decides whether our allegations are serious enough to

warrant an investigation, and what time scale is reasonable, as it is now well over

twelve months since the more serious ones were made. Who decided that our allegations were to be treated as counter-allegations and on what basis was that decision made.

2. The question of - Is it politically correct, and is it in fact legal, for a

Government department to collude with a quango investigation agency such as RSPB (who are known to oppose keeping of birds) and to supply funding for their initiative,

possibly supply protected information, then utilise such findings to phonetically

'gang bang' a minority group. All of which I fear was done to inhibit de-regulation.

Alleged summary offences supported by dubious evidence and presented by a. now ex-employee of RSPB appears to warrant full-scale investigation and support by the CPS. While allegations of serious indictable offences made by two businessmen and. their solicitor against; A Royal charity, a Government Dept., a Local Authority, a TV Company, Police Wildlife Liaison Officers sympathetic to the RSPB cause and certain individuals, supported by confirmed documentary evidence, appear to be largely ignored.

 

I should add that this statement to you is made against the advice of those in authority, who have expressed the fear that ministerial involvement or pressure may serve only to 'force the hand of the CPS to prefer charges against us, that may not otherwise have been brought, in order to justify their inaction. In other words the CPS are autonomous and will be seen to be so.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

S.A.Smith,

Edited June 10, 2008 by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 4

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 8

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 9

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 10

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 11

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 12

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THIS IS PAGE 13 This box one of the evidence and I have got anther 25 boxes of evidence to goe. Those who forget their history are in danger on having it become their future. Take note.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

THERE IS MUCH MORE