#SIR JON MURPHY’S PROVEN LIES.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF MERSEYSIDE, SIR JON MURPHY
On the 5thJanuary 2016

I sent an email containing an attached letter to the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Sir Jon Murphy. In that letter I requested an explanation as to why an official Merseyside Police document recording wrongful information about me is held by the Merseyside police force. This information connects and implicates me as being involved with drugs offences and most alarmingly with drugs offences IMPENDING.

The document further identifies me as an intelligence subject and advises any police officers requiring further information about me to contact the Information and Security Bureau (ISB) which is Merseysides COUNTER TERRORISM AND SPECIALIST UNDERCOVER SURVEILLANCE UNIT. The primary objective of the ISB is to monitor, apprehend and capture Merseysides most serious criminals.

The Chief Constable did not personally reply to my letter, however I did receive a response by Chief Inspector Gunatilleke on behalf of the Chief Constable. After reading the contents of his reply I emailed him again on the 8th Jan. to request clarification on his explanation relating to ” IMPENDING OFFENCES” and also to verify the date on which the document was created as I was unable to find it anywhere on the document. Once I had received this clarification I sent him my response as follows…….

Dear Chief Inspector Gunatilleke

I would like to bring your attention to the following:

You note my consern at the use of the phrase “IMPENDING” which as i pointed out to you means UPCOMING or IMMINENT .You attempt to reassure me that in Police terminology it simply means that at the time that the record was created, i had an outstanding court matter which had not been given a result on your Police records and that it does not mean an intention to seek a further prosecution. You further state that i was simply reading a police document in its raw state and that prehaps this is what had caused my misunderstanding. For clarrification on this point i emailed you asking if you would verify for me the exact date that the document was created, and on what page of the document this date is confirmed…I recieved your reply and I am now able to respond in full to your explanations of my very serious conserns….

Chief Inspector Gunatilleke, I can now catagorically state that there is no misunderstanding whatsoever on my part; Your explanation of the phrase “IMPENDING” simply meaning that at the time of the documents creation i still had an outstanding court matter that had not been given a result on your records, i find to be grossly offensive as it patently insults my intelligence; which it would appear you gravely underestimate!

In your email to me dated 11th January you clearly state that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS CREATED and that i would have to speak to the disclosure unit; this being the case i would like to ask you on what rationale you based your explanation to me? I will cover this point in more detail shortly! In responce to you suggesting i contact the disclosure unit i would like to ask; Whould that be the same disclosure unit that for three years has refused to comply with Data Protection Laws by denying me my lawfull right to all the documentation held on me as requested via a Subject Access Request, and have done this with the Chief Constables full knowledge which is what prompted me to contact him to request that no data whatsoever held on any Police systems relating to myself or my children be destroyed.

I have requested an explanation from the Chief Constable of an extremely serious issue, an issue which is undoubtedly of public concern yet you have dissmissively put to me that i should investigate it myself! Let me point out that Corrupt Police Practices are not my responsibility to investigate.
Sir, please look again at the copy document i sent to you! On the front cover page under Person Summary Details:Warning text: DRUGS [Niche]

You state that the data i have in my possesion which is printed on an Official Merseyside Police document, does not indicate (as i say it does) that i have been subject to arrest, charge or prosecution for any drug or terrorist offence…. of course it is only rational that you confirm this as we both know one hundred per cent that this is true and is quite easily proven…BUT THIS PART OF THE DOCUUMENT CLEARLY DOES INDICATE THAT I AM INVOLVED/IMPLICATED IN DRUGS RELATED OFFENCES and you have notably omitted these two words .

I specifically mention the omitted words, as to anyone inexperienced in such matters it may appear insignificant and unintentional, you and i both know that such omissions are highly significant when used in evidence in a court of law.

Please now look at the front cover page under Last Known Detail Available: Warning text:DRUGS IMPENDING OFFENCES PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS (EXPIRED) SUBJECT OF INTELLIGENCE REPORT
You attempt to divert my perception of your responce to the contents of the document by not directly connecting the word DRUGS to the words IMPENDING OFFENCES yet the words DRUGS IMPENDING OFFENCES CLEARLY FOLLOW EACH OTHER.

please look on page two under Force Intelligence Record Exists = Warning from Niche: DRUGS|IMPENDING OFFENCES|PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS|PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS (expired)|SUBJECT OF INTELLIGENCE REPORT*For additional information regarding these flags, please contact the ISB

You state that the FACT THAT A DRUGS WARNING EXISTS ON MY RECORD need not have been disclosed to me because ANY DATA IN RESPECT OF IT IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 29(1)OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT. This exemption applies when used to justify the following:
The Prevention or Detection of Crime
The apprehention and prosecution of offenders.

ISSUES INVOLVING A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY
Due to my lack of complete understanding on the legality of authorisation in applying such measures used on intelligence subjects such as myself, i was mistakenly of the belief that an application for authorisation through the MET. intelligence bureau must be sought by all other Police forces. I made a Subject Access Request to the MET intelligence unit and recieved two apparantly conflicting responces from two differant MET employees, both had been sent out at the same time. One of the responces implied that the MET did in fact hold information about me which they were not required to disclose. For clarity of these letters i requested an explanation but recieved no responce so i telephoned their Head of Disclosure John Potts. He clarified the METs connection with other forces. HE WOULD NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY that the MET held intelligence information about me but assured me that the MET have nothing to do with the authorisation of intelligence subjects in any other Police force EXCEPT IN CASES OF TERRORISM/SUSPECTED TERRORISM .

AT THE TIME OF MY CONVERSATION WITH MR POTTS I WAS UNAWARE THAT THE ISB WAS PRIMARILY MERSEYSIDES COUNTER TERRORISM AND SURVEILLANCE UNIT

The Data Protection Act states THAT YOU MUST PROCESS INFORMATION FAIRLY AND LAWFULLY. YOU MUST JUSTIFY THE EXEMPTION.

Chief Inspector, i am neither a drug taker nor a drug dealer. I live in an area largely populated with drug takers so surely any association, friendship or aquaintance with any of them would not warrent such a flag! Let us also consider my association with a life of crime… Besides a few non too serious motoring convictions we are left with three more serious offences, coincidently ALL THREE INVOLVE ARRESTS WHERE I WAS ASSAULTED BY MERSEYSIDE POLICE OFFICERS.

The first on the list was an incident in June 2009 where I WAS VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED BY LARGE POLICEMAN IN AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK WHICH LEFT ME IN NEED OF HOSPITAL TREATMENT AND AN OPERATION. Despite my terrible injuries and having done nothing wrong, and the fact that this policeman was dragged from the scene and driven off by colleagues… I WAS ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT POLICE.

Despite my injuries which included a broken nose and large haematoma to the side of my skull where he had brutally kicked me whilst on the floor, I WAS DENIED MY RIGHT TO MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR OVER NINETEEN HOURS, WHILST A CORRUPT INVESTIGATION AND POLICE COVER UP TOOK PLACE. The incident was not refered to the IPCC as a DSI (death or serious injury as defined by the IPCC) in accordance with Police Legislation. I can if you wish provide you and the public with copies of the documentation proving all parts of this allegation 100%. ….I was cleared of this charge in Crown Court based on the evidence in my favour and the testomonys of four independant witnesses. Yet on the document i have it is clearly printed next to Offence Recorded Description: SEC 47. ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM. under Court Result : barely noticable is recorded No conviction. No verdict recorded.

I AM INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE.(SHOCKINGLY THE POLICMAN INVOLVED WAS BASED IN THE LOCAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT)
The second on the list was an incident in November 2010 where AGAIN I WAS ASSAULTED BY A LARGE POLICEMAN in the back of his patrol car.,

AGAIN I WAS MALICIOUSLY ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT POLICE AND DETAINED FOR 17+ HOURS WHILST ANOTHER CORRUPT INVESTIGATION AND POLICE COVER UP TOOK PLACE. Again, I can if you wish provide you and the public with copies of the documentation to prove this allegation 100%….There was no trial in this case, (as part of a plea bargain) i agreed to plead guilty to an obstruct police charge in order to spare my young mentaly ill child the ordeal of a trial for malicious charges against her, I was even given (without request) a letter of attachment by the judge in the case which stated my limited basis of plea. After i had left the courtroom Police were insistent that i also sign a statement TO AGREE NOT TO PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THEM FOR THEIR TREATMENT OF ME ON THE NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT, though i now doubt the legality of this coerced statement! Yet again, on the document i have it is clearly printed next to Offence Recorded Description: SEC 47. ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM. under Court Result : no conviction/ guilty

The final arrest and charge took place on 18th September 2013 (this is on the bottom of page 3 of the document that i sent you)WHERE I WAS ASSAULTED BY A POLICEWOMAN IN MY OWN HOME and this arrest was for obstruct police. I WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY after the evidence was heard at court AGAIN I AM INNOCENT!. At this time i cannot comment further on this case as you are surely aware it is still involved in an IPCC investigation.

So there we have it Inspector Gunatilleke, the full round up of my documented offences which upon a more rational and closer inspection, consist of:

⦁ A few motoring offences a number of years ago and
⦁ an obstruct police (obtained through a corrupt investigation 4+ years ago)

Now that we are both clear on my criminal background i would put to you that any rationally minded, unbias person would agree that i am no Ma Baker, so i now ask you to explain to me exactly how the information compiled and recorded about me being wrongful and unjustified and held at Merseyside Police Counter Terrorism Unit is in accordance with the data Protection Principles? and how exactly The Prevention or Detection of Crime OR The apprehention and prosecution of offenders relates to your reasons for such innappropriate use of the data protection act? AND MOST SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY HOW EXACTLY YOUR FORCE PERCIEVES ME TO BE OF THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

Merseyside Police force has compiled information on me unfairly and unlawfully for illegitimate purposes. I shall if required supply you and the public with my full rationalle of these illegitimate purposes based on the balance of probability (with supporting evidence.)

In further support of my findings let us once more refere to your explanation of the word “IMPENDING” where you claim that at the time the document was created i still had an outstanding court matter not yet recorded on your records, the document you inform me, was in its raw state and not yet complete…so you attemp to lead me to believe that the word impending relates an impending offence which is recorded on the document.

I must conclude that you have merely presumed this to be the case, basing such presumption on what you believe to be the latest identified date on the document and obviously having your attention focused mainly on my wrongfull arrest history, the last date identified there being at the bottom of page 3 under 6 Custody Records:Arrest date 18th September 2013. Of course if this was the latest identified date on the document (and to date remains as my last arrest date) then your presumption of there being an outstanding court date would be correct, as the court conclusion for this case did not occur until 23rd January 2014 four months later,

BUT it appears you have not been as thorough in your examination of the document as i have. Please look to the top of page three (the same page) where you will see unde 4 Crime Victim Reports: this incident referes to a report i made of damage to my car and it is dated 29th January 2014…6 DAYS AFTER I WAS CLEARED OF THE CHARGE AGAINST ME…..THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OUTSTANDING COURT DATES, AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY THERE HAD BEEN AN UPDATED ENTRY ON THE PROFILE ALMOST A WEEK LATER! Please also take a closer look on the cover page next to the words Person Profile, where you will see the word (complete) again identifying that this is not a document in its raw form.
WHAT IS ALSO MOST ODD ABOUT THE DOCUMENT I HAVE SENT YOU IS THE FORCE SYSTEM SHOWN USED FOR ITS CREATION WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS UNKNOWN!

I did not previously mention that i have in my possession a further two Person profiles, so in total three person profiles.

One of these is dated 18th September 2013 (the date of my last arrest) which you assumed to be connected to the creation of the document i sent to you, and which contained so much detailed data! yet you state was in its raw form.) This second profile looks almost blank in comparrison and consists of just four pages. This profile consists solely of information relating to my arrest on that date…(the Chief Constable will be more than aware of the complaints and allegations i make in this case which i claim relate to other cases.)so perhaps should take particular note of the mugshot used on it! No mugshot was take of me on the date of my last arrest identified as the compilation date of this profile. The mugshot used is the same one used in 2010, 3 YEARS EARLIER when i was aslo assaulted and wrongfully arrested. You may pass this off as coincidence until i point out that the only other two incidents ( each given only one mention) are the one with which the mug shot was originaly taken for in 2010 and one relating to an apparantly irrelevant and seemingly unrelated speeding ticket for travelling at 50mph on a liverpool motorway in 2011. Everything possible seemed to be in place to prevent me from paying the fine for that speeding ticket. My offers to pay by debit card over the telephone were refused, i was sent back and forth from payment offices in Liverpool and Birkenhead repeatedly being told it was the other i had to pay it into, until eventually i was recieving threatening letters stating i had made no attempt to pay.

I have good cause to claim these incidents are connected. The last point to make about this second profile is that it STATES NO FORCE INTELLIGENCE RECORDS EXIST. (again refere to the date that it was compiled) Clearly they do exist and did at this time. Despite the words of no force intelligence records existing….i have noted the seperate ID Number also recorded on the document which directly links to intelligence subject information comiled about me!

A print off from your Niche system identifies the latest entry date as 29th January 2014 and at that time i am still identified as being an intelligence subject.
This entry completely discredits your account of “IMPENDING OFFENCES” and significantly weighs in favour of my concern of an intention by Merseyside Police to seek future malicious prosecutions against me as is my claim stemming back to 2010, and further adding weight to my claim of Merseyside Police unlawfull use of the data protection act for purposes which it is not meant.

Chief inspector you state you are not obliged to respond to my questions on pages three and four of my letter and you justify this by the exemption you quote under the Data Protection Act.
Those questions relate to the sourse of the wrongful information, the past, present and future purposes of the information, the identity of those involved in authorising your illegal spying upon me and my children, the dates of when this started, what surveillance measures have been used and my question of am i still under surveillance.

I would suggest that anyone who reads this letter will agree that Merseyside Police force should be stopped and answerable for the despicable and appalling treatment of me and breaches of my human rights . I again request a full explanation to my conserns listed in my first letter.

I stated that upon my realisation of the severity and possible implications of the above, that i am truly concerned for the safety of myself and my family and requested the Chief Constables personal assurance that we have not been placed in danger. I note with dismay that no such assurance has be given.
yours sincerely
Zelda Davies

I know that whatever response I receive to the above letter it will be in accordance with the “UNWRITTEN” cover up procedures used by the Chief Constable and his sub ordinates. It is obvious however that the Chief Constable and many of his officers are guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE!

IN 2016 MY BOOK “CRUCIFIXION OF JUSTICE” WILL BE PUBLISHED.
A TRUE ACCOUNT OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE BRUTALITY, LIES, CORRUPT POLICE INVESTIGATIONS AND COVER UP OPERATIONS, ONGOING POLICE HARRASSMENT AND ATTEMPTED POLICE SET UPS AND THE REASONS WHY. READ HOW FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY MERSEYSIDE POLICE ALMOST DROVE ME AND ME CHILDREN TO SUICIDE.
THE CLAIMS MADE IN MY BOOK ARE ALL PROVEN AGAINST MERSEYSIDE POLICE WITH THEIR OWN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION.

Chief Constable Jon Murphy

Chief Constable Jon Murphy defends use of undercover officers amid new claims http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12238445

#SIR JON MURPHY’S PROVEN LIES.