Saturday, 21 March 2015
By Tony Nixon
[b] an excerpt from my email to Julia Mulligan of 18/9/14
The bells in my head weren't just ringing but clanging at a deafening volume for what Greater Manchester had been through during the relevant period when it was a hot spot for Muslim rape, paedophile and trafficking gangs.
In this context, the career of Dave Jones, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, is an interesting one.
He started out with the Greater Manchester Police in 1986. (The force covers towns such as Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan, and the cities of Manchester and Salford.) Greater Manchester is the third largest police force in the country. During his time there, he held a number of uniform and CID jobs in the position of Detective Superintendent. This included leading on homicide investigations, "diversity" and intelligence management projects.
In 2002, he was promoted to Chief Superintendent, Head of Crime Support. And in January 2004 he was responsible for merging the Crime Support and Crime Investigation branches. He subsequently became head of CID with responsibility for the investigation of the most complex and serious of offences in the area. From February 2006 until April 2007 he became Temporary Assistant Chief Constable, with responsibility for tackling serious and organised crime, counter- terrorism and scientific services.
Having held senior positions within Greater Manchester Police (not only in the CID but as Temporary Assistant Chief Constable), it's inconceivable that Mr Jones wouldn't have been fully conversant with the problems surrounding Muslim, rape, paedophile and trafficking gangs in his area. Indeed it's likely to have been one of the most pressing - if not the most pressing issue - he would have been expected to deal with.
As you are no doubt aware, the recent Rotherham enquiry covered the 16- year period of 1997 to 2013. Thus let's compare the position re Greater Manchester and Rotherham, both of which are Muslim rape, paedophile and trafficking gangs hotspots.
The potential number of lives ruined in the Greater Manchester area?
A simple mathematical calculation and projection.
If we take the 1,400 victims in Rotherham (population: 257,800) and then extrapolate this figure to the Greater Manchester area (population: 2,700,000), and at the same time assume that for each named victim there are at a least two other victims (i.e., the parents, then the potential number of people who may have had their lives ruined: bear in mind that other family members will also have been affected), then the number is as follows:
Rotherham: 1,400 X 3 = 4,200.
Greater Manchester: (10 times the population) so 10 X 4200 = 42,000.
Looking at the figures above (as well as remembering that the original figure of 1,400 is a conservative one), it's quite conceivable that 42,000 individuals in the Greater Manchester area alone might already have had their lives ruined by Muslim paedophile, rape and trafficking gangs; as well as by the inaction of Greater Manchester Police. (Please note that my figures don't include the girls siblings, grandparents or close friends.)
A staggering number of young white girls have already been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, anti-racism and multiculturalism by those they trusted and by those whose (not insubstantial) salaries the British taxpayer is on the hook for.
Too many families have been ripped apart and damaged beyond repair.
Too many parents have had their lives ruined with no hope of justice or relief, until now that is.
Now, Mrs Julia Mulligan, I respectfully request that you answer honestly the following simple questions:
 How likely is it (in percentage terms) do you think that Dave Jones was well aware of these Muslim gangs in Greater Manchester during the period he worked there? 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% or 100%?
 In view of the fact that the CPS uses a 50%+ test, do you think Dave Jones should be thoroughly investigated (though not by his colleagues!)?
 Assuming that there is sufficient evidence for Dave Jones to be successfully prosecuted, do you think he should be brought before the Court or should he be given a gong?
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 04:17
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
By Tony Nixon
Dear Mrs Mulligan,
I have remarked previously that you are a woman who has an unstinting belief in her own omnipotence and, indeed, one who has been teetering on the edge of megalomania. You now appear to have toppled off such edge.
I refer, of course, to your illegal (and, I believe criminal) decision to misuse monies provided by taxpayers and North Yorkshire council tax payers, such as myself, such monies being in the budget funding North Yorks Police Authority (NYPA), to finance a High Court civil action brought by nine individuals acting in a personal capacity. The nine Complainants are seeking a permanent injunction to stop three citizens exercising their right of free speech via use of allegations of harassment by the latter.
Though I do not know the names of all nine Complainants, I am aware that three are serving police officers in North Yorks Police Authority and one a retired officer from the same force. The other five appear to be individuals who are at odds with Mr Hicks and Mr Ward who run the very popular North Yorks Enquirer website, which, for years, has been exposing corruption within NY Police A and various local authorities within North Yorkshire. I know that the North Yorks Enquirer was the first media outlet to expose the infamous Savile/Jaconelli paedophile scandal in Scarborough and Whitby - a scandal which North Yorks Police, recently assisted by yourself, have for years made every attempt to sweep under the carpet. Everyone knows about Jimmy Savile, whilst Jaconelli was a very prominent name in the area, at one time being the Conservative Mayor of Scarborough Council.
I note that one of the Complainants against Mr Hicks and Mr Ward is the current NYPA Chief Constable, Dave Jones, the very same person in respect of whom I provided you with damning evidence that he was guilty of misconduct in public office during his tenure in high office in Greater Manchester Police Authority between 2004-06 (Head of CID) and 2007 (Assistant Chief Constable). It is not in the least bit surprising that you, in your capacity of PCC, appointed Jones as Chief Constable for my area. If you had done your job properly you would have suspended Jones on 15 October 2014, following receipt of my very powerful evidence, and made sure that he was properly criminally investigated.
I now turn to Mr Hicks and Mr Ward.
Though I have never had the pleasure of meeting either of these two gentlemen, I have, during the past few years, read numerous articles they have written for North Yorks Enquirer. Having done so, I must admit to being extremely impressed by their great integrity, their extensive detailed research, and the fair and equitable manner in which their articles have been presented. These two gentlemen have been and still are of huge benefit to the community in North Yorks for they very diligently expose corruption where it exists. Unlike yourself, Mrs Mulligan, both believe in the rule of law, equity and the basic human right of freedom of speech. I might add that anyone who has been legitimately offended by anything they have written could have sued them for defamation. As I understand it no such action has ever been taken by anyone against the North Yorks Enquirer.
Whatever the merits of the application for an injunction to try to suppress the freedom of speech of these two excellent gentleman, one matter is absolutely 100% certain and it is this: your decision to use public (taxpayers') money to finance a private civil action is illegal. The fact that three of the Complainants are police officers is not material as all citizens are equal under English Law and a police officer has no more rights than anyone else, as you well know. What other projects do you have in mind for using public money for private purposes? Perhaps you intend the police budget to fund a visit by your deputy, "Woeful Will" Naylor, to some posh hairdresser in Harrogate to have his hair permed and his toenails manicured? Maybe you intend to purchase a stylish miniskirt for your CEO, Joanna Carter - the lady who left an important email for four+ months before bothering to read it?
In principle, the above examples are no different than what you are actually doing. Quite simply, it is illegal to use public funds for private purposes. In your case the situation is greatly exacerbated by the fact that your motive is to stop the free speech of two top-rate citizens. I have spoken with a few of my fellow lawyers and every one of them has the same opinion as myself - without any qualification you are acting blatantly illegally. One has even suggested that the whole matter has the whiff of a criminal conspiracy between you and Jones.
Such is your unbridled arrogance that I suspect that you have not thought through the consequences of your illegal actions. Therefore, I will enlighten you. Should your actions be found to be illegal then, a Court will order you to repay to the police budget all monies spent by it, including labour costs, as a consequence of your ultra vires actions.
My experience tells me that it is likely that thousands of pounds of costs have already been accrued re this action. Via contacts, I have learned that a London-based Queens Counsel represented the Complainants at a hearing at Leeds High Court in early February. A QC, paid for by the taxpayers, in a private action? For goodness sake! With regard to a case such as this, I suspect that a large amount of preparation will have been done before pleadings will have been filed. This will have included the preparation of a large bundle of documents. If so then I ask the question: Who has prepared them? Whatever time has been spent on doing this preparation by lawyers and ancillary staff at both the PCC and NYPA, needs to be quantified by a cost accountant as this is clearly a cost which must be born by yourself as an individual. None of this staff should ever have been used for it is an improper use of taxpayers' monies.
I suspect that, including the staff costs mentioned above, the costs figure already exceeds five figures as it stands; though such a figure may very well be much higher than £10,000, with the bulk of such sum not being the costs of solicitors and the QC but labour costs of staff at both the PCC & NYPA. Really, Mrs Mulligan, don't you think that you have created massive problems for yourself?
I now turn to the question of criminal misconduct on your part. As you are aware, I have previously studied in detail the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office. If you deign to look at the guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service you will conclude that your actions - in illegally using public monies to fund a civil case against citizens - falls squarely within the guidelines. You are also aware that this is a very serious criminal offence - hence the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
However, I will take no further action against you re this matter providing that you do the following by April Fools Day, time being of the essence:
 You cease immediately the illegal funding of the case.
 You make every effort to recover the sums already illegally spent
 You issue personal apologies to both Mr Hicks & Mr Ward re your utterly appalling conduct.
 You donate from your own funds £1000 to the Whitby R.N.L.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 22:25