DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 10 September 2008 Ian West LLB (Hons] RSPB Head of Investigations The RSPB, Headquarters, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL. Dear Ian West LLB (Hons] RSPB Head of Investigations Reference: Your correspondence dated 2 September 2008 and the questions that it generates. I have noted with some interest your comments and I would suggest that if you truly believe that I am telling lies about Guy Shorrock then you should report the matter to the police, as I will be doing in the public interest. This is because I feel that we both know that I have the shield of truth on my side as I have stated to you in the past. Not withstanding what I have just said, if I have said anything that is not true, not only will I desist from saying it again, I will do the following things: 1] Write Shorrock a letter of apology. 2] Publish a public letter apologising to Shorrock. 3] Send letters to anyone that Shorrock wants me to and explain the situation, however and it is a big however, what will you do if I am fully justified in what I am saying and other people are saying independently of me about Shorrock’s questionable activities? In the interest of justice, transparency and in the public interest please ask Shorrock to answer the following questions so we can decide who is telling the truth and who needs to apologise to whom. To negate confusion please ask Shorrock to answer yes or no to my questions, then if Shorrock feels an explanation is needed or if I ask for one, please explain further with a detailed answer. Please note that this is the second time that I have given you the opportunity to questions what I am going to publish about Shorrock. The first time that you were given the opportunity to question, what I was saying about Shorrock you did not feel the need to disagree with what I had to say about Shorrock. The questions that need to be answered before there can be any apologies are posed below. Please do not respond by the usual correspondence that goes round in circle and answers nothing of substance. INDEX OF DEREK CANNING’S COMPLAINT OF Guy Shorrock and questions that need answering to resolve the situation of who is lying and who should be prosecuted. 1] Acting as a Police man Did Shorrock act as though he was a Police officer by; A] Swearing out a search warrant on my home? In this question, a written explanation is needed especially in relation to whether Shorrock had the legal right to swear out a search warrant on my home. B] Collect and control all of the vital evidence without the police checking if Shorrock was carrying out the correct procedures? In this question, a written explanation is needed. c] Interview me at Hexham police station like a police officer? D] Caution my like a police officer? If I may comment on your statement that I sent an email on 31 January 2006, just to give the RSPB the impression that criminal prosecution was imminent against Shorrock. Does this email not relate to a civil action against Shorrock? If this is the case please note that before I can proceed further I am waiting for Maria Eagle MP Justice Minister to resolve the questions of whether or not Shorrock can swear out a search warrant given the fact he is not an acting Constable, see page 1340 Archbold 1997 where it clearly states a constable can swear out a search warrant once he has checked the evidence to support the application for the search warrant. I have put this matter in the hands of my MP and I have an appointment about the matter of the search warrant and the questions that I want asked in the open House Parliament in relation to the RSPB, Animal Health, the police and the need for a criminal investigation in relation to Shorrock, on the 17 September 2008 at Hexham. You have my full permission to contact my MP and ask him if you have any doubts about what I have said. The address and phone number that you need is the House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA. Tel: 0207 2194013 or 1 Meal Market, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1NF Tel: 01434 603954. 2] Publishing evidence. Did Shorrock and Bradbury at the beginning of the raid on my home, inform my mother, my father and me on the RSPB video that the video being done by the RSPB would only be used for evidential reason in court to make sure everything was done correctly? In the light of the reassurance that the RSPB film would not be allowed to be shown in the public domain did I allow myself to be filmed helping the RSPB to do the raid on my home? As I was not under arrest, I could have left the scene and went to work as a matter of right so I would not be needless embarrassed and my trial prejudiced by being shown on national TV. I have a copy of the Cook Report, if you would like to see the programme that was shown on the 17 August 1993 that featured me in my stables on the day of the raid on my home. The programme also states that I had offered to sell Chris Neal 14 Peregrine falcons, which is a lie as I stated that I had no birds for sale as I gave them away to my friends. This is why the programme had no tape recording of me offering to sell Neal any birds and they had to set it up without my voice. See the file on Ken Smith in relation to him suing the RSPB and the Cook Report lying about him. Despite the fact that I refused to sell Chris Neal any birds on a number of occasions on the phone, did: A] The Cook programme still incorrectly stated that I had offered to sell 14 Peregrine Falcons to Chris Neal? B] Did the RSPB release their video of the raid on my home to the Discovery Channel, the Cook Report Programme, Wild Life Crimes and so on and for what purpose was it released to the public domain? In this question, a written explanation is needed. This should not be verbal rubbish; you need to answer the question. C] Did the RSPB allow me to be shown on the Cook Report before my trial? In this question, a written explanation is needed. D] Did the RSPB allow to be evidenced at my court case the same footage of me that was shown on the Cook Report and why was that done? In this question a written explanation is needed as it was the RSPB who had taken the footage that was shown on the Cook Report and at my court case and it was the RSPB who had released the video footage in direct conflict with what Shorrock and Bradbury told me. 3] Perverting the course of justice. The issue of perverting the course of justice in relation to Shorrock is complex and multi faced therefore if there are any points that you do not understand I would be happy to explain what I am saying. I cannot not believe you when you say that you have seen to evidence to support my claim that Shorrock has lied. Have you read the correspondence that I have sent you? If you have then I have shown you that there is no doubt that Guy Shorrock [RSPB] has: 1] Withheld vital evidence. 2] Interfered with prosecution witnesses. 3] Ignored or destroyed vital defence evidence. Was the following evidence [11 points of fact] withheld from my defence either directly or indirectly by not being mentioned when Shorrock interviewed me at Hexham Police Station even though the evidence was relevant?; 1] All the Department of the Environment Registration documents that relate to the birds that Shorrock said I had sold, when in fact the documents, that are legally binding, said that the birds were a gift? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 2] R. Lumsdon’s statement? [see document numbered 89 and 90] that shows some of my stolen birds were found next to Gary Wilkinson’s house. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 3] The genetic report on the Sparrowhawks that I gave to Pc White [shorrock was also there with Jones I believe] on condition that the birds would be genetically finger printed and that I would be given the results within two to three weeks? [see document numbered 32, 44, 50, 75, 83, 88, 97, and 100] See the letter dated 26th November 2005 31st December 2005 file 3, 29th December 2006 file 4.] In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 4] Most significant of all the genetic report on the blood samples that I sent to the RSPB genetic experts in the summer of 1992 to account for the two peregrine falcons found in my car? [see documents numbered 8 to 17 and 34. See letter dated 13th November 2005 see file 3]. Note also Parkin was on the Council for the RSPB and he withheld that fact from my trial. He also made number of false statements, see the files 6 on the DNA and tapes that clearly show Parkin committed perjury at my court courts case. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 5] The forensic tests done on Sandcaster and Wilkinson’s cloths in 1992? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 6] Copies of the letters that I sent to the Police in 1992 making arrangements to DNA my birds? [see document numbered 8 to 17] In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 7] Statements from the people that were supposed to be watching the peregrine falcon nest with Heiniger on the 4th June 1992? [see documents numbered 53, 54. See letter dated 10th February 2006, 18th February 2006 and 30th January 2006. See video [Kielder video] of the nest site in question]. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 8] A copy of the BTO License for Heiniger to disturb Peregrine Falcons at Kielder? See letter dated 10th February 2006 18th February 2006, 30th January 2006]. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 9] The results from envelope taken from me in Dudley with ‘good quality oily fingerprints’? It is believed Wilkinson’s prints will be on the envelope as well MINE. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 10] Withholding the fact that the DoE in writing told Parkin, Wetton and the RSPB not to use Parkin’s and Wetton’s single locus probes in the Walker case in 1994 and my case in 1995? As this question is so vital, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked truthfully and not the question you want to answer. This should include how much money did the RSPB GAVE PARKIN TO DO THE DNA PROFILING ON MY BIRDS. 11] Shorrock’s Report on me? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. If you have, nothing to hide then there should be to problem in releasing this report to me. Note that I have requested this report a number of times and I have supplied ten pound for this report to be released. 12] The police audio tapes in relation to the conversations between the police control office and the police officers in relation to my car being stopped by the police with the two peregrine falcons in my car. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. If you have, nothing to hide then there should be to problem in releasing this report to me. Note that I have requested this report a number of times and I have supplied ten pound for this report to be released. It should be noted from the RSPB letter that has just been released by Animal Health in relation to me that the RSPB were fully aware that all of the evidence that related to me must be legally released to me before my court case. Furthermore, Shorrock is an ex-police officer so he would have been familiar with the need to disclose evidence to me before my court case. In relation to Shorrock being asked to resign from Manchester police I have never stated that this is the case in the public domain however, I have a tape recording of Parkin stating that he knows the reason why Shorrock was allegedly asked to leave the police force. Given the fact that I have given you this information have you asked Parkin why it was alleged Shorrock left the police, if not why not? Please release the reason why Shorrock left Manchester police Force and why Bradbury left the RSPB. 4] Disclosure of evidence. Disclosure in all criminal cases is of vital importance and a legal requirement that the RSPB knew about, as the prosecution led the way and the defence can only follow. In my case and others, Shorrock totally controlled my case above anyone else therefore this allowed him to withhold vital evidence. See the file on disclosure. As a matter of fact Genetic evidence was withheld from my court case therefore I would ask you to supply me with a copy of the report in relation to the samples of blood that I sent to Dr Parkin at Nottingham University in 1992 [the police and RSPB genetic experts, see the audio tape on Wetton] to prove that I bred the two birds found in my car in May 1992 and the report on the feathers from the Chattlehope Burn nest site that Brian Little sent to Dr Parkin for genetic profiling via the RSPB? Remanded It should be noted that being remanded on the 1 May 1995 before my trial prevented me from seeing my solicitor, as the prison service prevented legal visits. Why was all the evidence used to remand me withdrawn after my solicitor starting to ask the prosecution to explain why the nests sites that the RSPB said that I had been seen at did not exist on any maps? 5] Shorrock Interfering with witnesses Sat in court Further to the above point. From the first day, to the last day of my trial Guy Shorrock sat in the court behind Mark Styles listening to the evidence being given. Interfere A] Is it unacceptable to allow Shorrock to sit behind Mark Styles in the courtroom and for Shorrock to then to go out of the court to influence the witnesses before they give their evidence? B] Did CJ Griffiths, who was one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, make a statement to say that Shorrock tried to influence his evidence? See file 2. D] Did Jeff Armstrong Witnessed Shorrock going in and out of court to talk to prosecution witnesses to condemn me? 6] Department of the Environment Registrations Documents Given the fact Shorrock was given access to my records at the DoE why were the same records withheld from me by the Department of the Environment and the RSPB? It should be noted that after my trial I took legal action against the DOE therefore Lynne Garvey released the documents that the RSPB and the DoE had withheld from my trial. The documents in question affirm that I did not sell all of the birds that I was convicted of selling. Is this true or note in relation to the registration documents stating that I did not sell the peregrines in question? See the file on sale or gift. 7 Rob Davis’s fax Did Shorrock withhold Rob Davis’s fax from me? [sEE FILE 3 and page 48 of the enclosed second batch of documents] 8] The 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs subsection 11] Does the issue of the 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs not conclusively confirm that Shorrock has perverted the course of justice and there must be a criminal investigation in relation to my accusations? Brian Little’s court statement. The eggs from the Kielder nest site were marked in 1993 by Brian Little's PERMANENT BLACK SPIRIT BASED MARKER PEN, SO THE EGGS COULD BE IDENTIFIED IF THE EGGS WERE STOLEN; ref.;- BRIAN LITTLE'S STATEMENT 21 DECEMBER 1993. A] Did Shorrock, Bradbury, PC White and I sign for 14 peregrine falcon eggs that were taken from my bedroom? B] Did Shorrock withhold the fact that he had: B.1] Done tests on the 14 peregrine falcon eggs? B.2] Did Shorrock’s tests conclusively confirm that none of the 14 peregrine falcons had any black spirit based pen and was this fact withheld from my court case? 9] Genetics Evidence and D2 See file 1 to 5 on the DNA evidence. This is a vital section and it should be compared with file 1 to 6 on the DNA evidence. Files 1 to 6 will clearly show in documented form that the DNA evidence is bogus which is why Parkin’s and Wetton’s probes were discontinued after 15 years of trying to get the probes to work consistently moreover Parkin is corrupt and a member of the RSPB. D2 is claimed by Shorrock to be progeny ‘A’ from Kielder 12] Did Shorrock suppressed the fact that I had stated on the RSPB video tape that related to the raid on his home, at 1201 hours, that two of the birds in the aviary may be parents? A] Did Shorrock admit that I bred my birds in the interview that was conducted at Hexham police station by Shorrock? [see the statement A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1] [A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 page 1 JW4] B] Did Shorrock say, “IT WOULD BE A PEREGRINE FALCON, A BIRD BRED BY YOU, AT SOME STAGE, I TELL YOU NOW IT IS GENETICALLY RELATED TO SOME OF THE BIRDS, SO I PRESUME IT IS A BIRD BRED BY YOU� In the light of Doctor Scott's Report, I now know why Shorrock claimed the bird labelled D2 that was found dead in my freezer was a 1993 bird. Significantly, if I had of affirmed that he had bred the two birds found in my car on the 4th of June 1992, by PC Glenton, I would have been acquitted. Would it be true to say that D2 logically cannot be a 1993 bird as it would have been the same age or younger than the other progeny ‘A’ group in the stable block, which were still not hard penned yet? Note this is the blood group that I sent blood to Parkin in 1992. 10] The EEC Clause 13] A] In my interview [A4/1126/93 FILE 1] conducted by Guy Shorrock, on the 5th December 1993, from 1.27 pm to 5.35 pm, at Hexham Police station, did Guy Shorrock withheld the safety clause CONTAINED within the EEC Directive 3626/82 that stated I had to be aware that Peregrine Falcons were on the EEC Endangered List of Endangered Species before he could be found guilty? B] Is this clause mentioned in Shorrock’s secret report on me that was withheld? C] Why was it withheld that hybrids do not need to be registered and are not covered by the Act used to convict me. D] In my interview, did I mention that I had hybridised my peregrine falcons, which is why they had blue feet and why I mentioned the blue feet on my advert in the Cage and Aviary? 11] Cage & Aviary Declaration papers If you view the Cage & Aviary Declaration papers enclosed [see page 87 of the enclosed second batch of documents and the declared ring number of the birds being offered for sale] does this not show that Shorrock is not telling the truth when he states that I had advertised all the birds that I was found guilty of selling? 12] NOT ENDANGERED Is it true to say that Peregrine Falcons are not endangered, moreover, are more numerous than they have ever been, since records began? Mr Canning’s Police statement dated the 5th December 1993 In my Police, statement dated the 5th December 1993 Shorrock states; 1] That I did not complain about my birds being stolen. 2] Also, note that Shorrock went to the Department of The Environment to see which birds were sold or given away. [see my letter on sale or gift in file 3]. I asked Shorrock in my police interview to go to the DoE to see which birds had been sold or given away. Little did I know that he had already looked at the documents in question and had decided not to disclosed the registration documents that confirmed I had not sold the birds that I was later convicted of selling even after I specifically told him that I had not sold the birds and the registration documents would prove it. If this is not true then clearly explain to me how I am lying. I challenge you to prove that I am lying as I do all the way through this correspondence. With the money and power of the RSPB, proving me wrong should not be difficult, unless of course I am telling the truth. This last aspect is the big problem for the RSPB: THE shield TRUTH. MY STOLEN BIRDS The statement below was made to the Police before the raid on my home by Shorrock. Note that I told Detective Constable 1674 Stephan Gorden that Gary Wilkinson had stolen his birds. The Police then raided Wilkinson’s home looking for my birds on at least two occasions. In my first interview, 5th December 1993, I alleged that Wilkinson had stolen my birds to Guy Shorrock. [A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 and 3 and page 33, 34, 156, 157, 158, of the enclosed documents. How does Shorrock justify his statement that I had made no complaint of my birds being stolen before the raid on my home by Shorrock? 13] Shorrock and the Cage and Aviary declaration forms. REF 1 Guy Shorrock stated that all the peregrine falcons that I had in my control had been offered for sale in the Cage and Aviary Magazine. If you look at Louise Sherrington statement, she gives the ring numbers of the bird that I had offered for sale. If you now compare the ring numbers of the birds that I was convicted of selling can you tell me what ring numbers match the numbers on the declaration documents that legally declare that I was offering the birds for sale with the ring numbers that I was convicted of selling? This is a relevant question, as Shorrock in my interview must have known what ring numbers were on the declaration forms. Note PROGENY ‘A’ HAD NEVER BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE OR EVER SOLD. 14] The sequence of events of the raid on my home using the RSPB Video Evidence taken by Mc Niven. Ref 2 10.46 hours video starts. No search warrant was shown to my parents or me at the start of the raid. 10.52 hours my parents and I was informed by Bradbury and Shorrock that the video would not be published. This was stated in front of Pc White, Mr, and Mr. Canning. The video was released to the Cook Report and various other TV programmes therefore I had been lied to. [see RSPB film]. Is this true or not? The main aviaries in the field. 10.53 hours in the main aviary. 10.55 hours leave main aviary. In an aviary. 10.59 hours Shorrock Start to seize the birds in the aviary. 11.31 hours you can clearly see one female hybrid bird with blue feet, a blue scere and blue orbital eye rings. Hybrids, I have recently been informed by Animal Health, are not covered by the EEC Regulation that was bred before the 24 May 1994. This was the regulation used to convict me. Hybrids did not need to be registered also before the 24 May 1994 and after that date, as there was no consultation with stakeholders before hybrids were included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1994. A] Is it true to say that hybrids bred before the 24 May 1994 did not have to be registered and were not covered by the EEC Regulation that was used to prosecute me? B] Why was the fact that hybrids bred before the 24 May 1994 did not have to be registered and were not covered by the EEC Regulation used to prosecute me, withheld from me? Please note also the PC Hunter file where he states that he collected a peregrine falcon from me because it had blue feet which means it was a cross breed and there was no need to register the bird. This also relates to the other hybrids that I was convicted of selling. The two question above need a clear explanation. 12.01 hours I state clearly that the two Peregrine Falcons/hybrids with ring numbers 9533W and 5936W had produced semen, therefore could be parents of progeny ‘A’. Shorrock was asked to put this in his ‘Record of Procedure’. Why did Shorrock not do this? 12.02 hours again I claim that the two birds above could be parents. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.04 hours Bradbury said that the two birds might be the father of something. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.05.12 hours Bradbury said ‘could be a father’, in relation to the above birds. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.05.35 hours Bradbury said that the genetic evidence could work in my favour. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.9.51 hours the camera operator changes the battery in his camera. 12.12 hours Pc White mentions Gary Wilkinson. 12.20.33 hours the video inexplicably goes off at the crucial moment that the Tawny owl was being examined. This is the owl that I was acquitted of being cruel to. Why was that? In the stables. At 12.28 hours, according to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure, the stables are entered by a number of people. However, the video has had the time removed. Why was the time and date removed from the RSPB video? In the Garage. According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 13.40 hours ‘seized dead Sparrow hawks from the freezer’. According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 13.41 hours ‘seized a dead Merlin from the freezer’. According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 13.44 hours ‘seized D2’ ‘from the freezer.’ After my conviction does, Shorrock now concedes that D2 could be a parent bird of progeny A? [see enclosed second batch of document numbered 20, Shorrock’s statement in relation to the case that I SUED THE Chief Constable to force him to release the evidence that should have been released before my trial. I was paid compensation but no evidence was released therefore I am still waiting for inspector Holt’s report on my complaint in relation to my case]. There is 7 vital minutes missing from the video [13.40 hours to 13.46 hours]. 13.46 hours the video starts again two minutes after D2 was seized therefore 7 minutes from the time the first bird was seized from the freezer. You will note that it takes only a minute to seize the other birds from the freezer yet D2 strangely took twice as long. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ABOVE SEQUENCES AND WHY IT OCCURRED IN THE WAY IT DID, ESPECIALLY WHY THE FOOTAGE OF D2 IS MISSING FROM THE RSPB VIDEO? Until the missing footage is released, it may or may not be believed that the 7 minutes of the video was edited out, as this footage may or may not have shown that D2 was not an immature Peregrine Falcon as claimed by Shorrock. 13.54 hours the video stops again for a third time at a vital moment for the defence as after this time my bedroom was searched and Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs in front of me, Pc White, the RSPB video man [McNiven] and Shorrock]. Given Shorrock precisely written and contemporaneous notes that were signed by Shorrock, Bradbury and me, that were a dated and timed record of the procedure of the raid on my home that states matter of fact that Shorrock was in my bedroom, how does Shorrock justify his statement that he had not entered my bedroom and seen the eggs being counted? At 14.10 hours according to signed statements from Shorrock and Pc White up to 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs was seized in my bedroom. Given that it is documented fact that Shorrock committed heinous perjury at my court case when he stated that there was not 14 peregrine falcon eggs seized from my bedroom do you feel that Shorrock has committed perjury. No talking around the question just, tell it how it is, Shorrock is a liar and you and the RSPB are covering up for him. If this not totally and absolutely true in fact logically, morally and legally then please explain why. Furthermore, if I were not telling the absolute truth then would the RSPB not have sued me before now? Truth is a strangers in relation to Shorrock as it is also a stranger to you. I have been told you are an honest man but to date I have see no evidence of this therefore I would invite you to tell me what you truly believe is the truth and not the RSPB political line. Step out of your RSPB straight jacket and tell the truth. We must open ourselves to the truth and the truth to ourselves to move forward. The sins of the past will come back to visit the RSPB. At 14.18 hours according to Shorrock an incubator and Harness was seized from my bedroom. In the lounge of the bedroom At 14.20 hours in the lounge of my bedroom, a stuffed Peregrine was seized. I have noted with shock that Shorrock claims that he was not in my bedroom when Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. Shorrock even helped me lift the heavy incubator from my bedroom and into his red Vauxhall estate car. I can remember the water and bleach leaking out of the top of the incubator onto Shorrock’s car interior, therefore, Shorrock will not forget this fact, especially when the fact was pointed out to him. You will note that only Shorrock on the video is taking precise notes and he never leaves my side on the video, other than at 13.13 hours to 13.18 hours. Given the fact Shorrock was the one keeping precise notes, he never left my side throughout the raid on my home [except for the ring incident] and the fact that the Record of Procedure clearly shows that he was in my bedroom Shorrock’s statement that he did not witness the 14 eggs being counted out is cogently untenable. MR WEST IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT THAT I HAVE JUST MADE I WILL NOW ASK YOU TO CLEARLY JUSTIFY IN WRITING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW SHORROCK HAD LIED in my court case! IN THIS CASE YES OR NO WILL NOT DO. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT I AM WRONG. Furthermore, how is PC White’s statement a mirror copy of Shorrock’s statement when PC White on the RSPB video you can see takes no note? It would have been totally impossible for White to have remembered all the times of the events unless he copied the times from Shorrock’s statement even if White had a photographic memory as on the RSPB video White never looks at his watch unlike Shorrock so White could not know what times any given events occurred and out the precise time of the events in his statement [see the file on PC White and his precisely dated and timed statement]. Back in the main aviaries in the field. At 14.32 Hours the video starts again, which is 12 minutes after the stuffed Peregrine Falcon was seized from the bedroom and 38 minutes is missing from the video [the video is stopped at 13.54 Hours and stared again at 14.32 Hours In summary; You will note that there are three major issues that occurred on the day of the raid that are missing from the video; 1] The condition of the tawny owl and what had been said. 2] The age of D2 4] The 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. FOR THE SECOND TIME I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IN WHAT AREAS, YOU DISAGREE WITH ME. MR WEST PLEASE TAKE THIS SECOND CHANCE WITHOUT ANY MORE STATEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE BELIEVED or SUBTERFUGE, I WANT TRANSPARENCY and the truth. DO YOU AGREE THAT EITHER I AM LYING AND I SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR UNJUSTLY LYING ABOUT SHORROCK OR SHORROCK HAS BEEN LYING AND HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED? EITHER WHICH WAY DO YOU AGREE THAT THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS FOR YOU TO REPORT THE MATTER TO THE POLICE SO THAT BOTH SHORROCK AND I CAN BE INVESTIGATED AND INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE? I am very sorry that you feel I am wasting a charities time however I did not invite the charity into my life IT INVITED ITSELF AGAINST MY WISHES and I did not ask the charity to destroy my life with lies therefore the charity has sown the seeds of PERJURY and now it is time to harvest the seed of lies. Nothing but my death will stop me as I KNOW AS YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE. As the RSPB covet publicity, in the interest of justice and for justice to be seen to be done I will be publishing the above correspondence and your answers and Shorrock’s without any editing so we can all have our say and the public can judge for themselves. Do you agree that that this is the best way forward so the public can judge for themselves? WHY IS ANIMAL HEALTH MOVING AWAY FROM THE RSPB? Investigations Unit RSPB The Lodge Sandy Bedfordshire SG19 2DL Date: 17 04 2007 Dear DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 As you may be aware, from 1st April 2007, the functions of the Wildlife Licensing and Registration Service (WLRS) have been transferred to the new Animal Health Agency (formally the State Veterinary Service) which is an executive agency of Defra. This move affected the CITES Licensing and Bird Registration teams together with the Enforcement Liaison team. As part of this transfer process, we have taken the opportunity to review some of our current practices and policies. One of the practices which came under the spotlight related to the personal data held by the WLRS, and the organisations to which such information can be released under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘Act’). As you are aware, under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Act, personal data can be exempt from the non-disclosure provisions for the purposes of, amongst other things, the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. However, following advice we have received recently from our Data Protection Officer, it transpires that under the provisions of Section 29(3) personal data can only be released to statutory enforcement or prosecuting authorities, which includes the Police, central government departments (ie. HM Revenue & Customs) and to local government authorities; but does not include voluntary or charitable organisations. In the circumstances, I am afraid that it will now no longer be possible for us to release personal data held by the WLRS to you or staff in the RSPB’s Investigations Unit. Whilst we appreciate you do assist police forces in the identification, investigation and prosecution of wildlife offences; any releases of information relevant to such cases could now only be made direct to the relevant police officer or police force. PTO Although we cannot now release personal data to you, this does not preclude us from releasing other, non-personal data to you that might assist with any investigation you may be undertaking. We are also more than happy to continue giving you advice and information about the relevant legislation and our policies and practice in relation to the areas of work we are responsible for. Yours sincerely Head of WLRS I WILL GIVE YOU TWO WEEKS TO REPLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP Kind Regards, Derek Canning LLB [Hons] Quote Link to post
SPAR 2 Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 And how long did it take to write this one Derek Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 And how long did it take to write this one Derek A FEW HOURS SPAR BUT ARE YOU REALLY BOTHERED. The full version took 13 years and it still is not finished. Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 RSPB Quote Link to post
horris 3 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 10 September 2008 Ian West LLB (Hons] RSPB Head of Investigations The RSPB, Headquarters, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL. Dear Ian West LLB (Hons] RSPB Head of Investigations Reference: Your correspondence dated 2 September 2008 and the questions that it generates. I have noted with some interest your comments and I would suggest that if you truly believe that I am telling lies about Guy Shorrock then you should report the matter to the police, as I will be doing in the public interest. This is because I feel that we both know that I have the shield of truth on my side as I have stated to you in the past. Not withstanding what I have just said, if I have said anything that is not true, not only will I desist from saying it again, I will do the following things: 1] Write Shorrock a letter of apology. 2] Publish a public letter apologising to Shorrock. 3] Send letters to anyone that Shorrock wants me to and explain the situation, however and it is a big however, what will you do if I am fully justified in what I am saying and other people are saying independently of me about Shorrock’s questionable activities? In the interest of justice, transparency and in the public interest please ask Shorrock to answer the following questions so we can decide who is telling the truth and who needs to apologise to whom. To negate confusion please ask Shorrock to answer yes or no to my questions, then if Shorrock feels an explanation is needed or if I ask for one, please explain further with a detailed answer. Please note that this is the second time that I have given you the opportunity to questions what I am going to publish about Shorrock. The first time that you were given the opportunity to question, what I was saying about Shorrock you did not feel the need to disagree with what I had to say about Shorrock. The questions that need to be answered before there can be any apologies are posed below. Please do not respond by the usual correspondence that goes round in circle and answers nothing of substance. INDEX OF DEREK CANNING’S COMPLAINT OF Guy Shorrock and questions that need answering to resolve the situation of who is lying and who should be prosecuted. 1] Acting as a Police man Did Shorrock act as though he was a Police officer by; A] Swearing out a search warrant on my home? In this question, a written explanation is needed especially in relation to whether Shorrock had the legal right to swear out a search warrant on my home. B] Collect and control all of the vital evidence without the police checking if Shorrock was carrying out the correct procedures? In this question, a written explanation is needed. c] Interview me at Hexham police station like a police officer? D] Caution my like a police officer? If I may comment on your statement that I sent an email on 31 January 2006, just to give the RSPB the impression that criminal prosecution was imminent against Shorrock. Does this email not relate to a civil action against Shorrock? If this is the case please note that before I can proceed further I am waiting for Maria Eagle MP Justice Minister to resolve the questions of whether or not Shorrock can swear out a search warrant given the fact he is not an acting Constable, see page 1340 Archbold 1997 where it clearly states a constable can swear out a search warrant once he has checked the evidence to support the application for the search warrant. I have put this matter in the hands of my MP and I have an appointment about the matter of the search warrant and the questions that I want asked in the open House Parliament in relation to the RSPB, Animal Health, the police and the need for a criminal investigation in relation to Shorrock, on the 17 September 2008 at Hexham. You have my full permission to contact my MP and ask him if you have any doubts about what I have said. The address and phone number that you need is the House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA. Tel: 0207 2194013 or 1 Meal Market, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1NF Tel: 01434 603954. 2] Publishing evidence. Did Shorrock and Bradbury at the beginning of the raid on my home, inform my mother, my father and me on the RSPB video that the video being done by the RSPB would only be used for evidential reason in court to make sure everything was done correctly? In the light of the reassurance that the RSPB film would not be allowed to be shown in the public domain did I allow myself to be filmed helping the RSPB to do the raid on my home? As I was not under arrest, I could have left the scene and went to work as a matter of right so I would not be needless embarrassed and my trial prejudiced by being shown on national TV. I have a copy of the Cook Report, if you would like to see the programme that was shown on the 17 August 1993 that featured me in my stables on the day of the raid on my home. The programme also states that I had offered to sell Chris Neal 14 Peregrine falcons, which is a lie as I stated that I had no birds for sale as I gave them away to my friends. This is why the programme had no tape recording of me offering to sell Neal any birds and they had to set it up without my voice. See the file on Ken Smith in relation to him suing the RSPB and the Cook Report lying about him. Despite the fact that I refused to sell Chris Neal any birds on a number of occasions on the phone, did: A] The Cook programme still incorrectly stated that I had offered to sell 14 Peregrine Falcons to Chris Neal? B] Did the RSPB release their video of the raid on my home to the Discovery Channel, the Cook Report Programme, Wild Life Crimes and so on and for what purpose was it released to the public domain? In this question, a written explanation is needed. This should not be verbal rubbish; you need to answer the question. C] Did the RSPB allow me to be shown on the Cook Report before my trial? In this question, a written explanation is needed. D] Did the RSPB allow to be evidenced at my court case the same footage of me that was shown on the Cook Report and why was that done? In this question a written explanation is needed as it was the RSPB who had taken the footage that was shown on the Cook Report and at my court case and it was the RSPB who had released the video footage in direct conflict with what Shorrock and Bradbury told me. 3] Perverting the course of justice. The issue of perverting the course of justice in relation to Shorrock is complex and multi faced therefore if there are any points that you do not understand I would be happy to explain what I am saying. I cannot not believe you when you say that you have seen to evidence to support my claim that Shorrock has lied. Have you read the correspondence that I have sent you? If you have then I have shown you that there is no doubt that Guy Shorrock [RSPB] has: 1] Withheld vital evidence. 2] Interfered with prosecution witnesses. 3] Ignored or destroyed vital defence evidence. Was the following evidence [11 points of fact] withheld from my defence either directly or indirectly by not being mentioned when Shorrock interviewed me at Hexham Police Station even though the evidence was relevant?; 1] All the Department of the Environment Registration documents that relate to the birds that Shorrock said I had sold, when in fact the documents, that are legally binding, said that the birds were a gift? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 2] R. Lumsdon’s statement? [see document numbered 89 and 90] that shows some of my stolen birds were found next to Gary Wilkinson’s house. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 3] The genetic report on the Sparrowhawks that I gave to Pc White [shorrock was also there with Jones I believe] on condition that the birds would be genetically finger printed and that I would be given the results within two to three weeks? [see document numbered 32, 44, 50, 75, 83, 88, 97, and 100] See the letter dated 26th November 2005 31st December 2005 file 3, 29th December 2006 file 4.] In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 4] Most significant of all the genetic report on the blood samples that I sent to the RSPB genetic experts in the summer of 1992 to account for the two peregrine falcons found in my car? [see documents numbered 8 to 17 and 34. See letter dated 13th November 2005 see file 3]. Note also Parkin was on the Council for the RSPB and he withheld that fact from my trial. He also made number of false statements, see the files 6 on the DNA and tapes that clearly show Parkin committed perjury at my court courts case. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 5] The forensic tests done on Sandcaster and Wilkinson’s cloths in 1992? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 6] Copies of the letters that I sent to the Police in 1992 making arrangements to DNA my birds? [see document numbered 8 to 17] In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 7] Statements from the people that were supposed to be watching the peregrine falcon nest with Heiniger on the 4th June 1992? [see documents numbered 53, 54. See letter dated 10th February 2006, 18th February 2006 and 30th January 2006. See video [Kielder video] of the nest site in question]. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 8] A copy of the BTO License for Heiniger to disturb Peregrine Falcons at Kielder? See letter dated 10th February 2006 18th February 2006, 30th January 2006]. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 9] The results from envelope taken from me in Dudley with ‘good quality oily fingerprints’? It is believed Wilkinson’s prints will be on the envelope as well MINE. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 10] Withholding the fact that the DoE in writing told Parkin, Wetton and the RSPB not to use Parkin’s and Wetton’s single locus probes in the Walker case in 1994 and my case in 1995? As this question is so vital, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked truthfully and not the question you want to answer. This should include how much money did the RSPB GAVE PARKIN TO DO THE DNA PROFILING ON MY BIRDS. 11] Shorrock’s Report on me? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. If you have, nothing to hide then there should be to problem in releasing this report to me. Note that I have requested this report a number of times and I have supplied ten pound for this report to be released. 12] The police audio tapes in relation to the conversations between the police control office and the police officers in relation to my car being stopped by the police with the two peregrine falcons in my car. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. If you have, nothing to hide then there should be to problem in releasing this report to me. Note that I have requested this report a number of times and I have supplied ten pound for this report to be released. It should be noted from the RSPB letter that has just been released by Animal Health in relation to me that the RSPB were fully aware that all of the evidence that related to me must be legally released to me before my court case. Furthermore, Shorrock is an ex-police officer so he would have been familiar with the need to disclose evidence to me before my court case. In relation to Shorrock being asked to resign from Manchester police I have never stated that this is the case in the public domain however, I have a tape recording of Parkin stating that he knows the reason why Shorrock was allegedly asked to leave the police force. Given the fact that I have given you this information have you asked Parkin why it was alleged Shorrock left the police, if not why not? Please release the reason why Shorrock left Manchester police Force and why Bradbury left the RSPB. 4] Disclosure of evidence. Disclosure in all criminal cases is of vital importance and a legal requirement that the RSPB knew about, as the prosecution led the way and the defence can only follow. In my case and others, Shorrock totally controlled my case above anyone else therefore this allowed him to withhold vital evidence. See the file on disclosure. As a matter of fact Genetic evidence was withheld from my court case therefore I would ask you to supply me with a copy of the report in relation to the samples of blood that I sent to Dr Parkin at Nottingham University in 1992 [the police and RSPB genetic experts, see the audio tape on Wetton] to prove that I bred the two birds found in my car in May 1992 and the report on the feathers from the Chattlehope Burn nest site that Brian Little sent to Dr Parkin for genetic profiling via the RSPB? Remanded It should be noted that being remanded on the 1 May 1995 before my trial prevented me from seeing my solicitor, as the prison service prevented legal visits. Why was all the evidence used to remand me withdrawn after my solicitor starting to ask the prosecution to explain why the nests sites that the RSPB said that I had been seen at did not exist on any maps? 5] Shorrock Interfering with witnesses Sat in court Further to the above point. From the first day, to the last day of my trial Guy Shorrock sat in the court behind Mark Styles listening to the evidence being given. Interfere A] Is it unacceptable to allow Shorrock to sit behind Mark Styles in the courtroom and for Shorrock to then to go out of the court to influence the witnesses before they give their evidence? B] Did CJ Griffiths, who was one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, make a statement to say that Shorrock tried to influence his evidence? See file 2. D] Did Jeff Armstrong Witnessed Shorrock going in and out of court to talk to prosecution witnesses to condemn me? 6] Department of the Environment Registrations Documents Given the fact Shorrock was given access to my records at the DoE why were the same records withheld from me by the Department of the Environment and the RSPB? It should be noted that after my trial I took legal action against the DOE therefore Lynne Garvey released the documents that the RSPB and the DoE had withheld from my trial. The documents in question affirm that I did not sell all of the birds that I was convicted of selling. Is this true or note in relation to the registration documents stating that I did not sell the peregrines in question? See the file on sale or gift. 7 Rob Davis’s fax Did Shorrock withhold Rob Davis’s fax from me? [sEE FILE 3 and page 48 of the enclosed second batch of documents] 8] The 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs subsection 11] Does the issue of the 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs not conclusively confirm that Shorrock has perverted the course of justice and there must be a criminal investigation in relation to my accusations? Brian Little’s court statement. The eggs from the Kielder nest site were marked in 1993 by Brian Little's PERMANENT BLACK SPIRIT BASED MARKER PEN, SO THE EGGS COULD BE IDENTIFIED IF THE EGGS WERE STOLEN; ref.;- BRIAN LITTLE'S STATEMENT 21 DECEMBER 1993. A] Did Shorrock, Bradbury, PC White and I sign for 14 peregrine falcon eggs that were taken from my bedroom? B] Did Shorrock withhold the fact that he had: B.1] Done tests on the 14 peregrine falcon eggs? B.2] Did Shorrock’s tests conclusively confirm that none of the 14 peregrine falcons had any black spirit based pen and was this fact withheld from my court case? 9] Genetics Evidence and D2 See file 1 to 5 on the DNA evidence. This is a vital section and it should be compared with file 1 to 6 on the DNA evidence. Files 1 to 6 will clearly show in documented form that the DNA evidence is bogus which is why Parkin’s and Wetton’s probes were discontinued after 15 years of trying to get the probes to work consistently moreover Parkin is corrupt and a member of the RSPB. D2 is claimed by Shorrock to be progeny ‘A’ from Kielder 12] Did Shorrock suppressed the fact that I had stated on the RSPB video tape that related to the raid on his home, at 1201 hours, that two of the birds in the aviary may be parents? A] Did Shorrock admit that I bred my birds in the interview that was conducted at Hexham police station by Shorrock? [see the statement A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1] [A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 page 1 JW4] B] Did Shorrock say, “IT WOULD BE A PEREGRINE FALCON, A BIRD BRED BY YOU, AT SOME STAGE, I TELL YOU NOW IT IS GENETICALLY RELATED TO SOME OF THE BIRDS, SO I PRESUME IT IS A BIRD BRED BY YOU� In the light of Doctor Scott's Report, I now know why Shorrock claimed the bird labelled D2 that was found dead in my freezer was a 1993 bird. Significantly, if I had of affirmed that he had bred the two birds found in my car on the 4th of June 1992, by PC Glenton, I would have been acquitted. Would it be true to say that D2 logically cannot be a 1993 bird as it would have been the same age or younger than the other progeny ‘A’ group in the stable block, which were still not hard penned yet? Note this is the blood group that I sent blood to Parkin in 1992. 10] The EEC Clause 13] A] In my interview [A4/1126/93 FILE 1] conducted by Guy Shorrock, on the 5th December 1993, from 1.27 pm to 5.35 pm, at Hexham Police station, did Guy Shorrock withheld the safety clause CONTAINED within the EEC Directive 3626/82 that stated I had to be aware that Peregrine Falcons were on the EEC Endangered List of Endangered Species before he could be found guilty? B] Is this clause mentioned in Shorrock’s secret report on me that was withheld? C] Why was it withheld that hybrids do not need to be registered and are not covered by the Act used to convict me. D] In my interview, did I mention that I had hybridised my peregrine falcons, which is why they had blue feet and why I mentioned the blue feet on my advert in the Cage and Aviary? 11] Cage & Aviary Declaration papers If you view the Cage & Aviary Declaration papers enclosed [see page 87 of the enclosed second batch of documents and the declared ring number of the birds being offered for sale] does this not show that Shorrock is not telling the truth when he states that I had advertised all the birds that I was found guilty of selling? 12] NOT ENDANGERED Is it true to say that Peregrine Falcons are not endangered, moreover, are more numerous than they have ever been, since records began? Mr Canning’s Police statement dated the 5th December 1993 In my Police, statement dated the 5th December 1993 Shorrock states; 1] That I did not complain about my birds being stolen. 2] Also, note that Shorrock went to the Department of The Environment to see which birds were sold or given away. [see my letter on sale or gift in file 3]. I asked Shorrock in my police interview to go to the DoE to see which birds had been sold or given away. Little did I know that he had already looked at the documents in question and had decided not to disclosed the registration documents that confirmed I had not sold the birds that I was later convicted of selling even after I specifically told him that I had not sold the birds and the registration documents would prove it. If this is not true then clearly explain to me how I am lying. I challenge you to prove that I am lying as I do all the way through this correspondence. With the money and power of the RSPB, proving me wrong should not be difficult, unless of course I am telling the truth. This last aspect is the big problem for the RSPB: THE shield TRUTH. MY STOLEN BIRDS The statement below was made to the Police before the raid on my home by Shorrock. Note that I told Detective Constable 1674 Stephan Gorden that Gary Wilkinson had stolen his birds. The Police then raided Wilkinson’s home looking for my birds on at least two occasions. In my first interview, 5th December 1993, I alleged that Wilkinson had stolen my birds to Guy Shorrock. [A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 and 3 and page 33, 34, 156, 157, 158, of the enclosed documents. How does Shorrock justify his statement that I had made no complaint of my birds being stolen before the raid on my home by Shorrock? 13] Shorrock and the Cage and Aviary declaration forms. REF 1 Guy Shorrock stated that all the peregrine falcons that I had in my control had been offered for sale in the Cage and Aviary Magazine. If you look at Louise Sherrington statement, she gives the ring numbers of the bird that I had offered for sale. If you now compare the ring numbers of the birds that I was convicted of selling can you tell me what ring numbers match the numbers on the declaration documents that legally declare that I was offering the birds for sale with the ring numbers that I was convicted of selling? This is a relevant question, as Shorrock in my interview must have known what ring numbers were on the declaration forms. Note PROGENY ‘A’ HAD NEVER BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE OR EVER SOLD. 14] The sequence of events of the raid on my home using the RSPB Video Evidence taken by Mc Niven. Ref 2 10.46 hours video starts. No search warrant was shown to my parents or me at the start of the raid. 10.52 hours my parents and I was informed by Bradbury and Shorrock that the video would not be published. This was stated in front of Pc White, Mr, and Mr. Canning. The video was released to the Cook Report and various other TV programmes therefore I had been lied to. [see RSPB film]. Is this true or not? The main aviaries in the field. 10.53 hours in the main aviary. 10.55 hours leave main aviary. In an aviary. 10.59 hours Shorrock Start to seize the birds in the aviary. 11.31 hours you can clearly see one female hybrid bird with blue feet, a blue scere and blue orbital eye rings. Hybrids, I have recently been informed by Animal Health, are not covered by the EEC Regulation that was bred before the 24 May 1994. This was the regulation used to convict me. Hybrids did not need to be registered also before the 24 May 1994 and after that date, as there was no consultation with stakeholders before hybrids were included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1994. A] Is it true to say that hybrids bred before the 24 May 1994 did not have to be registered and were not covered by the EEC Regulation that was used to prosecute me? B] Why was the fact that hybrids bred before the 24 May 1994 did not have to be registered and were not covered by the EEC Regulation used to prosecute me, withheld from me? Please note also the PC Hunter file where he states that he collected a peregrine falcon from me because it had blue feet which means it was a cross breed and there was no need to register the bird. This also relates to the other hybrids that I was convicted of selling. The two question above need a clear explanation. 12.01 hours I state clearly that the two Peregrine Falcons/hybrids with ring numbers 9533W and 5936W had produced semen, therefore could be parents of progeny ‘A’. Shorrock was asked to put this in his ‘Record of Procedure’. Why did Shorrock not do this? 12.02 hours again I claim that the two birds above could be parents. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.04 hours Bradbury said that the two birds might be the father of something. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.05.12 hours Bradbury said ‘could be a father’, in relation to the above birds. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.05.35 hours Bradbury said that the genetic evidence could work in my favour. Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’? 12.9.51 hours the camera operator changes the battery in his camera. 12.12 hours Pc White mentions Gary Wilkinson. 12.20.33 hours the video inexplicably goes off at the crucial moment that the Tawny owl was being examined. This is the owl that I was acquitted of being cruel to. Why was that? In the stables. At 12.28 hours, according to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure, the stables are entered by a number of people. However, the video has had the time removed. Why was the time and date removed from the RSPB video? In the Garage. According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 13.40 hours ‘seized dead Sparrow hawks from the freezer’. According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 13.41 hours ‘seized a dead Merlin from the freezer’. According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 13.44 hours ‘seized D2’ ‘from the freezer.’ After my conviction does, Shorrock now concedes that D2 could be a parent bird of progeny A? [see enclosed second batch of document numbered 20, Shorrock’s statement in relation to the case that I SUED THE Chief Constable to force him to release the evidence that should have been released before my trial. I was paid compensation but no evidence was released therefore I am still waiting for inspector Holt’s report on my complaint in relation to my case]. There is 7 vital minutes missing from the video [13.40 hours to 13.46 hours]. 13.46 hours the video starts again two minutes after D2 was seized therefore 7 minutes from the time the first bird was seized from the freezer. You will note that it takes only a minute to seize the other birds from the freezer yet D2 strangely took twice as long. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ABOVE SEQUENCES AND WHY IT OCCURRED IN THE WAY IT DID, ESPECIALLY WHY THE FOOTAGE OF D2 IS MISSING FROM THE RSPB VIDEO? Until the missing footage is released, it may or may not be believed that the 7 minutes of the video was edited out, as this footage may or may not have shown that D2 was not an immature Peregrine Falcon as claimed by Shorrock. 13.54 hours the video stops again for a third time at a vital moment for the defence as after this time my bedroom was searched and Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs in front of me, Pc White, the RSPB video man [McNiven] and Shorrock]. Given Shorrock precisely written and contemporaneous notes that were signed by Shorrock, Bradbury and me, that were a dated and timed record of the procedure of the raid on my home that states matter of fact that Shorrock was in my bedroom, how does Shorrock justify his statement that he had not entered my bedroom and seen the eggs being counted? At 14.10 hours according to signed statements from Shorrock and Pc White up to 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs was seized in my bedroom. Given that it is documented fact that Shorrock committed heinous perjury at my court case when he stated that there was not 14 peregrine falcon eggs seized from my bedroom do you feel that Shorrock has committed perjury. No talking around the question just, tell it how it is, Shorrock is a liar and you and the RSPB are covering up for him. If this not totally and absolutely true in fact logically, morally and legally then please explain why. Furthermore, if I were not telling the absolute truth then would the RSPB not have sued me before now? Truth is a strangers in relation to Shorrock as it is also a stranger to you. I have been told you are an honest man but to date I have see no evidence of this therefore I would invite you to tell me what you truly believe is the truth and not the RSPB political line. Step out of your RSPB straight jacket and tell the truth. We must open ourselves to the truth and the truth to ourselves to move forward. The sins of the past will come back to visit the RSPB. At 14.18 hours according to Shorrock an incubator and Harness was seized from my bedroom. In the lounge of the bedroom At 14.20 hours in the lounge of my bedroom, a stuffed Peregrine was seized. I have noted with shock that Shorrock claims that he was not in my bedroom when Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. Shorrock even helped me lift the heavy incubator from my bedroom and into his red Vauxhall estate car. I can remember the water and bleach leaking out of the top of the incubator onto Shorrock’s car interior, therefore, Shorrock will not forget this fact, especially when the fact was pointed out to him. You will note that only Shorrock on the video is taking precise notes and he never leaves my side on the video, other than at 13.13 hours to 13.18 hours. Given the fact Shorrock was the one keeping precise notes, he never left my side throughout the raid on my home [except for the ring incident] and the fact that the Record of Procedure clearly shows that he was in my bedroom Shorrock’s statement that he did not witness the 14 eggs being counted out is cogently untenable. MR WEST IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT THAT I HAVE JUST MADE I WILL NOW ASK YOU TO CLEARLY JUSTIFY IN WRITING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW SHORROCK HAD LIED in my court case! IN THIS CASE YES OR NO WILL NOT DO. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT I AM WRONG. Furthermore, how is PC White’s statement a mirror copy of Shorrock’s statement when PC White on the RSPB video you can see takes no note? It would have been totally impossible for White to have remembered all the times of the events unless he copied the times from Shorrock’s statement even if White had a photographic memory as on the RSPB video White never looks at his watch unlike Shorrock so White could not know what times any given events occurred and out the precise time of the events in his statement [see the file on PC White and his precisely dated and timed statement]. Back in the main aviaries in the field. At 14.32 Hours the video starts again, which is 12 minutes after the stuffed Peregrine Falcon was seized from the bedroom and 38 minutes is missing from the video [the video is stopped at 13.54 Hours and stared again at 14.32 Hours In summary; You will note that there are three major issues that occurred on the day of the raid that are missing from the video; 1] The condition of the tawny owl and what had been said. 2] The age of D2 4] The 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. FOR THE SECOND TIME I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IN WHAT AREAS, YOU DISAGREE WITH ME. MR WEST PLEASE TAKE THIS SECOND CHANCE WITHOUT ANY MORE STATEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE BELIEVED or SUBTERFUGE, I WANT TRANSPARENCY and the truth. DO YOU AGREE THAT EITHER I AM LYING AND I SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR UNJUSTLY LYING ABOUT SHORROCK OR SHORROCK HAS BEEN LYING AND HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED? EITHER WHICH WAY DO YOU AGREE THAT THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS FOR YOU TO REPORT THE MATTER TO THE POLICE SO THAT BOTH SHORROCK AND I CAN BE INVESTIGATED AND INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE? I am very sorry that you feel I am wasting a charities time however I did not invite the charity into my life IT INVITED ITSELF AGAINST MY WISHES and I did not ask the charity to destroy my life with lies therefore the charity has sown the seeds of PERJURY and now it is time to harvest the seed of lies. Nothing but my death will stop me as I KNOW AS YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE. As the RSPB covet publicity, in the interest of justice and for justice to be seen to be done I will be publishing the above correspondence and your answers and Shorrock’s without any editing so we can all have our say and the public can judge for themselves. Do you agree that that this is the best way forward so the public can judge for themselves? WHY IS ANIMAL HEALTH MOVING AWAY FROM THE RSPB? Investigations Unit RSPB The Lodge Sandy Bedfordshire SG19 2DL Date: 17 04 2007 Dear DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 As you may be aware, from 1st April 2007, the functions of the Wildlife Licensing and Registration Service (WLRS) have been transferred to the new Animal Health Agency (formally the State Veterinary Service) which is an executive agency of Defra. This move affected the CITES Licensing and Bird Registration teams together with the Enforcement Liaison team. As part of this transfer process, we have taken the opportunity to review some of our current practices and policies. One of the practices which came under the spotlight related to the personal data held by the WLRS, and the organisations to which such information can be released under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘Act’). As you are aware, under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Act, personal data can be exempt from the non-disclosure provisions for the purposes of, amongst other things, the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. However, following advice we have received recently from our Data Protection Officer, it transpires that under the provisions of Section 29(3) personal data can only be released to statutory enforcement or prosecuting authorities, which includes the Police, central government departments (ie. HM Revenue & Customs) and to local government authorities; but does not include voluntary or charitable organisations. In the circumstances, I am afraid that it will now no longer be possible for us to release personal data held by the WLRS to you or staff in the RSPB’s Investigations Unit. Whilst we appreciate you do assist police forces in the identification, investigation and prosecution of wildlife offences; any releases of information relevant to such cases could now only be made direct to the relevant police officer or police force. PTO Although we cannot now release personal data to you, this does not preclude us from releasing other, non-personal data to you that might assist with any investigation you may be undertaking. We are also more than happy to continue giving you advice and information about the relevant legislation and our policies and practice in relation to the areas of work we are responsible for. Yours sincerely Head of WLRS I WILL GIVE YOU TWO WEEKS TO REPLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP Kind Regards, Derek Canning LLB [Hons] thats 1 big write up Quote Link to post
Halfinch 51 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 :wacko: :wacko: Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted November 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 part one of the RSPB'S claims Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted November 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 ' date='Nov 11 2008, 01:14 AM' post='755598'] Part two of the RSPB'S claims that I am wrong. We all have the right to our own opinion even if it is blinded by misguided duty and loyalty Quote Link to post
bullet 125 Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 you've come this far so dont give up mate, im just going through aload of shite with my ex employer, three hearings later and a tribunal looming, a fight against the council is a tough one, they dont like the fact they'd be seen wasting public money if proven wrong, cid were involved and they raided my house, took my pc, 6 months later they dropped the charges and returned my pc, but the council didnt want to be seen defeted and alot of public money would of been spent on the case but the fight still goes on Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted November 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 you've come this far so dont give up mate, im just going through aload of shite with my ex employer, three hearings later and a tribunal looming, a fight against the council is a tough one, they dont like the fact they'd be seen wasting public money if proven wrong, cid were involved and they raided my house, took my pc, 6 months later they dropped the charges and returned my pc, but the council didnt want to be seen defeted and alot of public money would of been spent on the casebut the fight still goes on The Council would not be so free with wasting money if it was coming out of their pocket. Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 STILL NO ANSWERS The Council would not be so free with wasting money if it was coming out of their pocket. Quote Link to post
Ratman2 2 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Anyone fancy a pint? well! it's boring init. Give us a break Del Boy, it's your fight, deal with it. :protest: :headshot:: Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Anyone fancy a pint? well! it's boring init. Give us a break Del Boy, it's your fight, deal with it. :protest: :headshot:: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ IT. Quote Link to post
Ratman2 2 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Anyone fancy a pint? well! it's boring init. Give us a break Del Boy, it's your fight, deal with it. :protest: :headshot:: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ IT. That is very true, but you don't have post it, do you. AND WHY DO YOU INSIST ON SHOUTING?? Your posts do nothing but harm to forums like this one, and all the other forums you use to promote your fight, the anti's love this sort of shit. Deal with it in the law courts, and we all know your very familiar with law courts. Quote Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Anyone fancy a pint? well! it's boring init. Give us a break Del Boy, it's your fight, deal with it. :protest: :headshot:: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ IT. That is very true, but you don't have post it, do you. AND WHY DO YOU INSIST ON SHOUTING?? Your posts do nothing but harm to forums like this one, and all the other forums you use to promote your fight, the anti's love this sort of shit. Deal with it in the law courts, and we all know your very familiar with law courts. You sound like an anti to me as the opposite is true: the RSPB DO NOT LIKE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY. I have had trouble with you before and I think you should come clean and say where you loyalties are to be found. You can only speak for yourself and you are wrong. Quote Link to post
![DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%201024%201024%22%20style%3D%22background%3A%23c46362%22%3E%3Cg%3E%3Ctext%20text-anchor%3D%22middle%22%20dy%3D%22.35em%22%20x%3D%22512%22%20y%3D%22512%22%20fill%3D%22%23ffffff%22%20font-size%3D%22700%22%20font-family%3D%22-apple-system%2C%20BlinkMacSystemFont%2C%20Roboto%2C%20Helvetica%2C%20Arial%2C%20sans-serif%22%3ED%3C%2Ftext%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.