THE TRUTH ABOUT BRIAN PEAD - PART NINE

18

On Saturday 24 May 2008, Maya Walker visited Days Lane and took a number of photographs between 09:38 and 09:46. It was obviously light and therefore the photographs were of no use in relation to the alleged late-night incidents, but Brian and Maya felt that a jury ought to be able to have sight of clear and unambiguous photographs of Brian’s house, the views from his house and the general layout of the houses, the church and the road itself.

Brian asked Maya to ensure that she would not use any zooming facility on her camera – he wanted a set of ‘pure’ photographs for a jury to examine.

(The police photographer, Peter Thompson, on the other hand, took a few photos from Brian’s bedroom window on 20 May 2008 – without his consent – which had used a zoom lens to such an extent that it looked as though both parties could lean out of their respective bedroom windows and shake hands!)

Remarkably, the photos show that Elizabeth McIntyre had now closed her curtains at the left-hand window (as seen from Brian’s house) – yet she had failed to do this between October 2007 and May 2008.

The photos taken by Maya Walker clearly show the scaffold poles in front of the window and the fact that the glass in the window was some 7 or 8 inches above Brian’s genital area. The photos also show the low ceiling in the bay area of the window.

Another photo timed at 09:41 clearly shows the scaffold ladder obstructing the view into Brian’s bedroom window – yet the three ‘witnesses’ had all claimed they had a clear and unobstructed view into that window.

Another photo taken at 09:42 shows the large blue advertising banner obstructing a large portion of Brian’s bay window. This had been fitted by scaffolder Terry Westcott at the time of erecting the scaffold. Such was its design that it could not be fitted after the scaffold had been erected.

Brian knew that, whilst these photographs were useful in terms of providing a jury with a general feel for the area, they would serve little purpose in recreating the exact conditions at night, so he asked Maya to take another set of photos the following evening.

On Sunday 25 May 2008, Maya Walker created another set of photographs, commencing at 9.38pm and finishing at 10.08pm.

This set of photos shows the reality of what could or could not be seen from 62 Days Lane looking into 89 Days Lane. They show that with the light off, it is impossible to see a person’s face, or the colour of his hair or eyes, or even a certain look on a person’s face (all of these things had been alleged in the witness statements).

Furthermore, it is impossible to be able to see whether anyone had their hand down their trousers or whether any ‘movement’ was taking place. And it was impossible to see anyone’s genitals.

Thus, had the police bothered to take such a set of photographs (with all their access to professional quality photographs and cameras) they would have known immediately that there was no case to answer.

 Maya Walker was a counsellor – not a photographer – but even her amateur photos had shown that what the females were alleging was palpable nonsense.

Why, then, were the police so keen to take this all the way to Court? What had they to gain for such a waste of taxpayers’ money? Why were they spending so much time and energy on a false case, when research has shown that the Bexley Sapphire Unit was understaffed and under resourced?

These questions will be answered in forthcoming chapters, but we must not get ahead of ourselves.

The photograph above is of 87 Days Lane (the house where the Meekings live) and of 89 Days Lane, Brian’s house which is clad in scaffolding.

This photograph was taken by Maya Walker at 21:43 on 25 May 2008, just five days after Brian’s arrest. It was taken at street level from outside 62 Days Lane and no zoom or other photographic embellishment was used. The scene replicates exactly the conditions at the time of night the females claimed they saw Brian masturbating at his bedroom window (the bay window to the far right of Brian’s property. The window to the far left is the bedroom window where Brian’s clothes were hanging up.

It is evident that, with no lights on, it would be impossible to see anyone standing at a window, much less identify the colour of their eyes and hair from almost 100 feet away.

                                           

19

Brian Pead used to leave his house between 7:15 and 7:30 each morning. On Monday 2 June 2008, he walked to New Eltham train station on a bright sunny morning, a walk that usually took him around twelve minutes. He spoke to no-one on the journey and stopped at no shops on his way to catch his train to London Bridge before taking a bus to Hackney.

As he turned into Station Approach from the main road, a people carrier drew up alongside him and the driver said, “Excuse me, Sir.” Brian ignored this, as he had no business with the driver and had not seen him before.

Walking on, the driver then pulled up alongside Brian again and repeated his earlier introduction. Brian carried on walking.

The driver then pulled up directly alongside Brian and flashed what looked like a warrant card and the driver said, “I need to speak with you, Sir; please stop.”

He parked up in Station Approach and got out of the unmarked vehicle.

“What do you want?” asked Brian.

“A young Asian woman was sexually assaulted this morning in Avery Hill Road and you match her description,” said the driver.

“Where is your warrant card? I want to see it,” said Brian, who by now could see this scenario for what it was.

The plain-clothes officer showed his card.

“Why have you stopped me? What description am I supposed to fit?”

“Well, she said her attacker was wearing a black jacket, blue jeans, shoes and carrying a laptop bag.”

“Is that right? I suggest you take a look along the London-bound platform and you’ll find at least half a dozen other men matching that description so why have you stopped me?”

“I need to see some identification, Sir,” said the officer.

“I am not happy with this unlawful stop and search. I am not happy at all,” said Brian.

 The officer then took Brian’s laptop bag out of his hand and searched through it, unlawfully.

He asked Brian to show some identification and, in an effort to get rid of the officer, Brian showed his bank card.

Brian knew that this was directly connected with his arrest for exposure on 20 May 2008, but he was not certain at this stage quite what the connection was.

The whole scenario did not last more than ten minutes, but it had angered Brian.

When he arrived at the Off Centre offices, he went about his business of attending to his clients before his pre-arranged meeting with Thelma Mathews, his line manager.

During this line management meeting, Brian told Thelma about the unlawful stop and search at the station, and she said that the police scare her and she hates the idea of courts and giving evidence and so on. Brian made a point of asking her to record the fact of the stop and search in the minutes of their meeting. Thelma Mathews agreed to do so.

The next day, the Tuesday, Maya Walker slept the night at Brian’s house. At around 6.30am on Wednesday 4 June 2008, she showered and left for work. She did not leave with Brian because she had to drive to Hackney by way of Walthamstow to collect her son from her former husband’s house and take him to school.

As she left, Brian got up to go to the bathroom to use the toilet and shower.

A man of immense intuition who listens to that part of his personality, something made him look out of his bedroom window. A few yards further down the road he saw to his right a large white pantechnicon, the sort of vehicle used by removal firms. At that very moment, he was overwhelmed with a feeling of evil. Something was not right about this. No-one in the street was moving house, so it was an oddity, the sort of thing which Brian notices. There were also one or two other unmarked vehicles close by and Brian noticed these, too, because he had not seen them parked there before. Like most people, Brian noticed the cars that his neighbours drove and even sometimes the cars that their friends or relatives drove. But he had never seen these vehicles before and the feeling of evil that swept over him was something that he became acutely aware of.

He moved from the bedroom window at the front of his house and into the bathroom at the back.

Sitting on the toilet, he heard loud knocking at his front door. The feeling of evil returned. He called Maya Walker.

“Something’s really strange, Maya. There’s loud knocking at my front door and just after you left, I saw a huge furniture van just down the road.”

“OK, well, answer the door and see what it’s all about. Leave the phone on so that I can hear what’s going on.”

Brian then got off the toilet and went downstairs with the mobile phone still connected to Maya Walker.

Brian’s house had a strong, wooden front door which was the original front door when the house had been built and this door led out onto a small porch which had a glass front door. As he opened the wooden door, he noticed a group of people standing on his front step.

He turned the key in the porch door (Maya Walker had locked it as she left) and suddenly the group of people burst through the door, into his house and snatched the mobile phone out of his hand.

Cameramen were on his gravel driveway.

The entire scene was surreal. It was like a scene from a movie featuring the Gestapo.

Brian was also immediately handcuffed in what the police term ‘the front stack position’ – with the suspect’s hands cuffed in front of him, but not crossed over.

Brian was taken into the kitchen. At this stage, his house still resembled a building site. Some floors and ceilings were missing. Thick dust coated many of the surfaces.

Once he had grounded himself, Brian counted five officers.

“What the fuck is going on here?” he asked.

“We have a search warrant to search your house.”

“So where is the warrant? I want to see a copy. And why have you arrested me? What have you arrested me for? And why the fuck is that film crew here? Where is my mobile phone? I want it back and I want all of your names.”

The questions came thick and fast, but the scene being played out was also played out in fast motion. People moved swiftly around his house – it was organised chaos and Brian was attempting to make sense of the chaos unfolding in front of him.

He was told that he wouldn’t be getting his phone back – it was seized. He was also told that he had been arrested for alleged ‘illegal activity on the internet’. Brian was knowledgeable enough to know that there was no such reason for an arrest. Normally, if a suspect is arrested, he or she has to be told of the specific reason he or she is being arrested for. It is not sufficient for the police to say, for example, you are being arrested for theft. They have an obligation to be specific – “You are being arrested for the theft of a television set”, for example.

Thus Brian already knew that they had broken the rules under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2008. The authors suggest that every householder obtains a copy of this Act and studies it carefully. It may well save you from being the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

“So where is a copy of the search warrant?”

“We’ll leave a copy with you before we go.”

This is itself improper conduct by the police. They should, in fact, have asked to be invited into the property – by barging past Brian as he opened his front door, by handcuffing him and taking his mobile phone off him, they broke every rule in the PACE book.

The police are also supposed to offer a householder the opportunity to have a relative, friend or neighbour present during a house search. It was clear that they had broken this rule on two occasions already. Firstly, it is obvious that the police were aware that Maya Walker was sleeping over on the night of Tuesday 3 June 2008. They had watched her leave the house and drive off down the road before storming Brian’s house.

Secondly, he had been on the mobile phone and speaking with her to let her know what was going on when they unlawfully snatched it out of his hand (there were five officers) and shut the phone down.

Having asked to enter the property, the police are supposed to explain to the householder the reason for the search and what they are searching for.

This did not happen. It should also be remembered that at this stage in his life, Brian was 55 years of age and had no criminal record. The way he was being treated was both extraordinary and unnecessary.

“Go and get me the director of the tv film crew,” ordered Brian.

A few minutes later, the female director entered Brian’s property.

“Why are you on my property and why are you filming me?” asked the irate householder.

“We have permission to be here,” the director feebly offered.

“Whose permission?”

“The Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard.”

“Does he own this house?”

“No.”

“Then he can’t give you that permission. Only I can because I own it. Let me be clear about this – you are trespassing and your entire crew is trespassing. Get off my property now or you’ll be sued in the High Court. Now fuck off!”

Most people who know him would say that Brian is an extremely polite man. Some would say an old-fashioned gentleman. But this was not a time to be polite. His rights were being abused at every step of the way. He wanted to call his daughter, Sorrel, to let her know what was happening and to ask her to come round to support him, but he had been isolated.

The tv director left and her crew then set up camp opposite his house, sitting on the low church wall of the Holy Redeemer. Passers-by stopped and asked questions. The authors will allow their readers to imagine the type of conversations that the information that the film crew were ‘inadvertently’ spreading because the crew were putting together a documentary called ‘To Catch a Paedophile’, which was later shown on ITV.

The authors have contacted ITV and sought disclosure of the footage taken at Brian Pead’s property. ITV has not co-operated with the legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests.

The police continued to break all of the rules as set down in PACE. When he needed to urinate, he asked for the handcuffs to be removed, but the leading officer, whom Brian later found out was known as Jason Tunn, refused to remove the handcuffs. This was becoming grossly inhumane treatment.

As the officers swarmed all over Brian’s house and garden, they would seize material and bring it into the kitchen where the officer in charge of logging all the material had set up a ‘desk’ on top of an ironing board.

Each time the officer (calling himself DC Lee Honour) made an entry in the Seized Property Book he would ask Brian to sign for it.

At one point, a female officer came downstairs with two unmarked DVDs and DC Honour asked Brian to sign for them. Brian refused, stating that he had no recollection of the DVDs and that they could have been planted.

“What do you think this is, fucking Starsky and Hutch?” responded the unprofessional officer.

Computers that had not been used in three or four years were removed from Brian’s shed at the bottom of his garden. These computers were placed in large plastic bags, sealed, and a signature put over the seal and the number entered into the Log Book. For the first time, the police were following procedure.

It is important for the reader to note at this point what the correct procedure about removing material from a property is. Where possible, it must be placed in a plastic bag and sealed and a unique number given to it. It has to be signed for by the owner. This procedure was not followed in a few short weeks in a separate house search which was to have serious repercussions for Brian.

Maya Walker arrived at Off Centre and logged on to the internet. She had the presence of mind to search for a telephone number for the Holy Redeemer Church opposite Brian’s house, and she eventually got through to Nicholas Kerr, the Vicar. Walker asked him to call on Brian since there was a police raid and Brian had been unlawfully isolated.

Nicholas Kerr walked across from the vicarage to Brian’s house and asked, as a friend, to be allowed to speak with Brian. In a clear breach of the PACE regulations, he was turned away. The law is clear on this matter – Brian should not have been isolated and he was fully entitled to have someone accompany him.

But the police do not always follow procedure. Perhaps this is one reason why the general public is rapidly losing confidence in the police service – and rapidly not giving the police the consent it needs.

Tunn came down the stairs with a book in his hand. “This Liverpool book – did you write it?”

“Well, my name is on it, so that’s a yes. I’ve written four others on the entire history of Liverpool Football Club and also four books on education. What’s happening here today will make another book, trust me.”

Tunn was the very same officer who had unlawfully stopped Brian two days previously at New Eltham station.

Around midday, the search was over and Brian was transported to Charing Cross police station in an unmarked car. DS Tunn was driving, and Brian sat in the back, alongside a female officer calling herself DC Julia Godfrey.

(The reason we use the term ‘calling himself or calling herself’ is because the police admit that on certain operations they will use false names – often the names of dead children.)

Tunn stopped the car in Sherwood Park Avenue and bought three bottles of water before driving along the A2 through Blackheath and eventually into the Charing Cross Road. They waited in a lay-by for around half-an-hour whilst they ‘waited for a car-parking space’ – at least this was the reason provided to Brian when he asked what the delay was for. The authors believe that this was yet another deliberate strategy to try to intimidate Brian and cause him to break down.

It should be remembered that on 8 May he had typed his letter to the Employment Appeal tribunal and here, on 4 June 2008, he had been arrested for the second time in two weeks, had his house unlawfully searched and his rights abused.

20

Having had no legal representation when he was interviewed and charged with Exposure at Bexleyheath Police Station, Brian opted to have a lawyer present during this interview.

The duty solicitor was a sharp-minded black woman called Marcia Weise from a firm of solicitors known as AA Mirsons.

Ms Weise was not a solicitor, but a paralegal. Brian found out that she wanted to train as a solicitor. She told him that she had been informed by the police that he had allegedly been interacting with girls under the age of 13 on the internet.

This was news to him – this had never been mentioned during his arrest. Furthermore, the only under-13 year old he had ever interacted with on the Internet was his grand-daughter, Emily, aged 9.

Brian could not help feeling that this was a repeat of the spurious allegations he had encountered at Lambeth. Allegations grew and changed as they went along, and here the police had misinformed Marcia Weise as to the real reason for his detention.

DC Godfrey undertook the initial interview, with Tunn in the background. Brian had encountered this before – this was merely a repeat of PC Sargeant and DC Saib.

Godfrey asked Brian to tell them about his encounters on the Faceparty website. She was trawling for information.

At this stage, Brian was not aware that the Faceparty website had been liquidated, so all of his responses were made without that knowledge.

Godfrey asked how Brian had come to engage with a person known as ‘Shelley’. Note how that name is spelled -  with an ‘e’ before the ‘y’. This small - but important fact – would have tremendous significance for Brian in months to come.

Brian started to recount the truth as he saw it. He explained that he had encountered this person on Faceparty and that ‘she’ was clearly not a teenager but an adult.

Upon hearing this, Julia Godfrey exclaimed, “But you couldn’t have known it was an adult’, to which Brian replied, “But I did. I told my friend Geoffrey Bacon it was an adult. I knew from the very start.”

Now, the authors believe that a detective engaging in a real investigation would have then asked the most obvious next question: “How did you know that it was an adult?”

But Godfrey failed to ask this most basic of questions. The reader might like to pause and ask him/ herself why a police officer would not ask such an obvious question. The authors believe it was because the police already knew that Brian was innocent and that he had known that he was always chatting with an adult.

Brian challenged DS Tunn to “obtain the chatroom logs from Faceparty because they will prove that I am telling the truth”.

Tunn replied that he was unable to obtain the logs. Brian knew this to be a lie. He had heard about, and read, several cases in which chatlogs were featured as evidence in criminal trials. This was an extremely simple case in Brian’s eyes – he asked for the chatlog evidence and that would clear him. The lead detective claimed that the logs were ‘unobtainable’. He did not mention to Brian that Faceparty was in the process of liquidation and all evidence of illegal police activity on that website was being ‘lost’ in the process.  

Brian went on to explain how he and this person alleging to be a 14-year-old had then been chatting on MSN and how, when using his friend’s computer in Chislehurst, he had eventually told ‘her’ that she was a fake. He also explained that he had intended to report ‘Shelley’ to the Faceparty management.

These revelations made Brian Pead an extremely dangerous man, but not because he is any kind of sex offender. He was extremely dangerous to the police for altogether different reasons and Marcia Weise had been quick to spot what it was.

At this point, she asked for the interview to be stopped. She wanted time to speak with her client.

“Brian, I can see exactly what’s happened here,” she began. “You’re clearly not a paedophile because I’ve met many through my work and you’re not.”

“I know.”

“But what you’ve done is you’ve out-stung their sting operation and they will be out to get you. Be careful. You’re highly emotional and angry and I understand all of that, but believe me, be careful. You’ve seen what they’ve been up to and they will be out to get you. Calm it.”

Knowing what he knows now, at that point he would have told the police nothing more, making a ‘No Further Comment’ interview.

But he continued to allow himself to become engaged in further questioning and gave the police information which they were eventually to twist round into some form of prosecution and with which they were able to turn people against him.

 The golden rule is “Never talk to the Police”. For more information on this matter, you are invited to visit ‘The Anti-Terrorist’ on YouTube and watch his series of informative videos.

Brian had been arrested at 7.30am that morning and he was not released until 8.30pm. This is another tactic used by the police – keep a suspect waiting, keep him ‘sweating’, make him doubt himself, keep him enclosed in a cell and so on.

He was released without charge and bailed – with no conditions – to appear at Charing Cross police station the following month whilst the police ‘continued with their inquiries’. Brian knew this meant that they wanted to buy more time, not because they wanted to investigate any further, but because they wanted to cause as much disruption to his life as possible, keep him busy and try to ensure that he forgot about his appeal against Lambeth Council.

Brian had given a truthful account of his activities on Faceparty and MSN.

At 8:36pm, Brian was given a Police Bail Notice prepared by Police Sergeant Woods (P190770). The notice read:

“…Alleged offence: Offender of any age cause/ incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration – SOA 2003…”

This was unusual for a number of reasons. At no time had Brian been asked throughout his lengthy interviews on this day about any form of sexual activity with anyone under 13. This was news to him. Furthermore, it is usual to note which particular section of the Sexual Offences Act (the SOA) which the allegation (or later a charge) refers to. Here, no particular section of the Act had been referred to.

It should also be noted – because it is vitally important to note it – that the allegation was that Brian Pead had allegedly caused or incited a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity. The phrase ‘under 13’ has legal ramifications. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers all manner of offences relating to sex as its names suggests. However, it divides the offences into two distinct categories, those perpetrated against adults and those against children. In respect of those against children, it further sub-divides offences into two categories: those perpetrated against children from the ages of 0-13 and those against children aged between 14 and 16. The legal penalties for offences against children under 13 are more severe than those for 14-16 year olds. The authors do not include here the stigma attached to such crimes perpetrated against those under 13 (or, indeed, those against 14-16 year olds) but focus only on the legal aspects.

What should also be recorded and noted is that Brian Pead had never engaged in any sexual activity with anyone under 13. He had never spoken to anyone of that age and never met anyone of that age. A discerning reader might now be thinking that Brian was being linked to this particular age-group in a further attempt to defame him. He had just spent many hours in the interview room where neither DC Godfrey nor DS Tunn ever mentioned anything to do with under 13-year-olds. [Authors’ note: We have read the transcripts of those interviews and 13 year olds are never mentioned.] Their entire focus had been to trawl for information, and part of that particular fishing expedition had mentioned Brian’s encounters with ‘Shelley’ – the alleged 14-year-old. So this reference to an under-13 year old made no sense whatsoever.

From the police perspective, however, it served a purpose. It would make Brian’s family, friends and work colleagues recoil in horror and – in the event that they needed to jail him – his sentence would be greatly increased. For those readers of this book who doubt that the police act in this cunning way, we refer them to the Hillsborough Disaster, in which many innocent people lost their lives, and, as they lay dead in the makeshift mortuary, the police were looking into the Police National Computer (PNC) to see if the victims of their incompetence had any ‘form’ and they also took blood samples from the innocent victims to see if they had raised levels of alcohol in their blood. The victims were, of course, dead and unable to object or protest at such inhumane and degrading treatment. This is the police force of England and Wales as we know it today.     

It is worth mentioning at this point the Custody Record Front Sheet in relation to Brian’s arrest. It provides the reason for his arrest as “Sexual offences. Other (soliciting child to commit sexual act)”. Notice that he was supposedly arrest at 07:22 that same morning for unspecified inappropriate activity on the internet. Note that no age is provided for ‘the child’ and that the alleged ‘sexual act’ is not specified. These are significant breaches of protocol. It is tantamount to arresting someone for murder where there is no body and the name, age or gender of the alleged deceased person are not mentioned either.

The Custody Record sheet describes the circumstances of Brian’s arrest: “…The DP [detained person] has been interacting on the internet with a young child in inappropriate (sic) manner. Warrant executed and further evidence found. Arrested for p&ei…”

No evidence of this alleged inappropriate interaction with a young child had ever been produced during the hours of interview. Note, also, that no age is mentioned here – just the term ‘a young child’. Notice that there is no attempt to describe the alleged ‘inappropriate manner’ of the alleged interactions. And notice that the Custody Record claims that ‘further evidence’ of such activity was found at Brian’s address and removed. Notice, too, that he was arrested to assist police with their enquiries.

This was all a scam. His investigations into child abuse at Lambeth and his investigations into Faceparty had brought him to the attention of the police as a ‘person of interest’.

They needed an excuse to arrest him and to search his property because they were not aware of the full extent of his research. They also needed an excuse to defame him and cast doubt upon his research. The police thus decided to raid his home with a film crew in attendance. (This has the effect of causing shock and awe in his immediate neighbourhood. They spread rumours about a suspect and try to be seen as doing a ‘good job’ in the ‘war against child molesters’. They arrest an innocent man – who has, in fact, been aware of their illegal activity on the internet – and they frame him. They distract him and they provide him with a great deal of paperwork which means his focus will be taken off the employment tribunal appeal in respect of Lambeth Council.)

The Custody Record sheet also provides useful information as to the real police motives in this matter. In the ‘Reasons for Detention’ box, the following was inserted:

“…To secure or preserve evidence. To obtain evidence by questioning…”

Given that the police had unlawfully searched Brian’s house, and given that they had taken away a van load of material including six computers from his house, there was no further need to ‘secure or preserve evidence’ since it was already in the possession of the police. That reason can therefore be discounted.

“To obtain evidence by questioning” is an open-ended and meaningless statement. Since he was not charged, the police had clearly not gathered any evidence that was worthy of a charge. The transcripts of the interviews show that much of the ‘questioning’ was not focused on any alleged interactions with a fake 14-year-old girl, but rather on his knowledge of Faceparty and the police activity there. Technically, he had been incarcerated unlawfully. It was a ruse simply to find out what he knew. 

 Just before he left the police station he asked to call his daughter, Sorrel Pead. He got through and the conversation went like this:

“Dad, what the fuck is going on?”

“Well, I need your support on this, Sorrel.”

“But Dad, a Julia Godfrey called me earlier and told me you’re a paedophile.”

“Well, I’m not as you know – at least I hope you know – but it’s part of their game. You must do whatever is right for you. But I am asking you now to support me on this.”

“Yeah, but there was that business at Lambeth, too. I can’t make sense of it all.”

“Look, I have to go now. Come and see me tomorrow or something. Let’s talk. But I will say just this – that I am innocent, just as I was at Lambeth and I am asking you for your support on this. Give my love to the children and say ‘Hi’ to Paul. Take care, love you.”

As he left the police station, he remembered that the police had not returned his mobile phone, so he asked Marcia Weise to call his daughter and put her mind at ease. He told her what the police had said to his daughter and Marcia replied, “Yeah, that sounds about right. They try to turn everybody against you. That’s what they do. We see it every day in our job.” She said that she was on her way to a family gathering but she would try to call. In the event, she didn’t.

Brian made his way home to Days Lane in Sidcup from Charing Cross, arriving home around 10pm.

His entire life was unravelling before him. As he climbed into bed, he thought about Off Centre and his clients. He thought about his daughter and his grand-children. He has what he calls the ‘gratitude attitude’. Each night before he goes to sleep he thanks the Universe for providing him certain people and certain events in his life – his blessings. He thanked God for providing him with his daughter and three beautiful grand-children whom he was very close to. He was on one level unconcerned about the events of the day because he knew himself to be innocent and he also knew that these events had entered into his life to test his character and resolve and to develop him as a human being. He was unaware, of course, of just how bad things were to get for him.