EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE 'PENSIONER ATTACKED' STORY.

Mr. David Joe Neilson, the main witness in the Katrina Taylor murder of 1996, has received a response as to why a 1.8 meter high fence was erected outside his house, providing the cover for an assailant to approach him unseen and attack him within an inch of his life.

David Neilson beaten black and blue

See 'Pensioner Attacked' for his truly shocking story.

Ian Kedge, Head of Environmental Health in Lewes District Council and according to David Neilson, the crook who's been involved in all his troubles starting in 1996.

Ian Kedge insensitively refers to Katrina Taylor's murder as “an alleged murder.” Whether Katrina Taylor's family is aware that their daughter's murder is “alleged” to have happened is yet to be seen.

As reported in the Katrina Taylor being erased from history blog, her murder has been removed from Wikipedia's list of UK unsolved murders list; Ian Kedge goes one step further in erasing her murder from history by implying Katrina Taylor may have been killed by other means other than murder. Perhaps Sussex Police should contact Ian Kedge, who obviously seems to have new knowledge of Katrina Taylor's death which everyone else doesn't seem to know.

Kedge explains “The District Council has received a number of complaints about the condition of the above-mentioned property. In particular, the public’s complaints focused on the unsightly daubing of the property with red lettering and signs relating to an alleged murder.”

The Murder House - “scruffy” and “an eyesore”

The obvious questions at this point are; how many complaints and from whom? Wouldn't it be standard procedure to contact the occupier of a property about its condition, red lettering and signs relating to a murder, which definitely did happen in 1996 and which has definitely destroyed many lives since?

If the complainants were so concerned that the area was being made to look “scruffy” and “an eyesore”, shouldn't they have voiced their concerns rather than erecting a 1.8 high fence which hides a vulnerable pension away from public view.

Ian Kedge defiantly defends his actions, “The police have not raised any concerns that the fence poses a security threat and fencing at properties is very common in this locality,” and goes on further to suggest that more fencing will be erected, to cover-up the crimes that he himself has been party too, saying “Indeed, additional fencing might be thought to add to the security of the property.”

SECURITY FOR THE GUILTY, NOT FOR THE INNOCENT.

The Fence of Death

The fence now obscures any vision from the outside from what's happening behind it. Already an assailant has used the cover of the fence to lay in wait for David to come out, where upon he was attacked and beaten to within an inch of his life.

To say that the police have “no concerns that the fence poses a security threat” validates David Neilson’s claim that he was too frightened to call the police.

Indeed it appears that Commissioner Bourne and Sussex Police were instrumental in getting it erected in the first place. Ian Kedge writes “In response, the District Council, working with the landowner, the Town Council and the local Police, have erected a fence on the neighbouring property in an attempt to tidy the area.”

Stolen Sign

Whether removing a large wooden message board drilled into the brick, with the website address www.vic20.com written on it, constitutes tidying up is debatable. Did Katy Bourne personally remove the sign or did she get her number two, Mark Streeter from Sussex Police to do it? Either way a sign was illegally removed to stop the promotion of a website that alleges serious crimes committed by Katy Bourne. If Katy Bourne processed any integrity, she would be taking David Neilson to court to stop the promotions of such websites, rather than revert to such underhand and surreptitious means?

Approaching the first year since Katy Bourne's election we now know what it means to be a victim under her Nasty Party political regime.

Gary Reynolds and his brother

We now learn the shocking news that Sussex Police used £3.8 million of tax-payers money to settle its negligence charge with Gary Reynolds. Left paralyzed after a serious head injury shortly after being detained by officers in Brighton, he will be wheelchair-dependent and in need of care for the rest of his life.

After five years of fighting for justice, we'll never know whether Gary Reynolds suffered a crack to his head from a policeman's boot, or whether he hit his head on concrete after being shoved to the ground. Only the people present know for sure, and considering the IPCC has no authority to question private company employees such as Reliance Security, the truth will never be known.

What is of no doubt is that Sussex police officers do kick people when they are down. Watch this video posted by GGM11 showing a police officer kicking a man as he falls to the ground having been tasered. This is the same scenario as what happened to Gary Reynolds, and shows nothing has been learnt and its business as usual.

Sussex Police successfully maneuvered around any liability by cleverly claiming ignorance about the PACE Codes of Conduct, and threw the ball back into the court of the Home Office.

KATY BOURNE'S PAST COMES BACK TO HAUNT HER.

Katy Bourne

In September 2012 and in the run-up to the Police and Crime Commissioner elections of November 2012, Katy Bourne was present at an IPCC meeting in London, when the subject of Gary Reynolds’s case was brought up in conversation.

Katy Bourne leapt off her seat and in a witches shrill said “Oh..... Are we allowed to talk about this?”

To which IPCC Commissioner, Mike Franklin , shot her down by reminding her that, “Yes, we can talk about it because it is in the public domain.”

Mike Franklin

Katy Bourne's true colours shone through later in the meeting when a hypothetical question was put forward to the panel. 'What should happen if the police knocked down the wrong door?' Katy Bourne pipes up and says, “If you say sorry to them, they can take legal action against us.”

This simple response alone sums up Katy Bourne’s distain for the people she was voted to serve. By referring to “them,” she demonstrates the ‘them and us’ mentality of the nasty Conservative Party, of which she would not be a Commissioner without.

It is with the news of Gary Reynolds’s £3.8 million payout that her words have come back to haunt her. Katy Bourne’s disregard for common people and common victims of crime is absolute zero. Katy Bourne is happy to waste taxpayer’s money to settle without having to admit any liability.

KATY BOURNE SPCC HELD DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE.

David Neilson is scathing in his opinion of Katy Bourne and her performance in office thus far. He has this to say about her:

David Joe Neilson

Katy Bourne Sussex Police Crime Commissioner Covers up witness intimidation.

Katy Bourne is not acting within her oath of office. She is not working for the people of Sussex, as she is supposed to. She is only working to cover up for criminals from murderers to Sussex Police corruption to Council corruption. She is covering up for the killers of Katrina Taylor and the attempted murder of me. How much is she being paid-off by Mark Slade aka Marcel Sulc to cover up the murder of Katrina Taylor and other major crimes?

WE HAVE STARTED A PETITION FOR A PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO SUSSEX POLICE HANDLING OF THE KATRINA TAYLOR MURDER.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petit...
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION

OTHER WEBSITES BEING COVERED UP ARE:
www.vic.20m.com, www.xxp.1hwy.com, www.kt7.fanspace.com, www.117.20m.com, www.318.20m.com

THE LETTER READS:

Dear Sir

Erection of Fence at Plot Adjoining 318, South Coast Road, Peacehaven.

I refer to your e-mail dated 3 November 2013 to Peacehaven Town Council which has been forwarded to me and would respond as follows:

The District Council has received a number of complaints about the condition of the above-mentioned property. In particular, the public’s complaints focused on the unsightly daubing of the property with red lettering and signs relating to an alleged murder. The complainants were concerned that the area was being made to look scruffy and an eyesore.

In response, the District Council, working with the landowner, the Town Council and the local Police, have erected a fence on the neighbouring property in an attempt to tidy the area.

The fence is 1.8 m high and is not located adjacent to the highway , therefore is considered permitted development and does not require planning permission. The police have not raised any concerns that the fence poses a security threat and fencing at properties is very common in this locality. Indeed, additional fencing might be thought to add to the security of the property and, rather than restricting insurance cover, may well enhance cover through lower premiums by restricting unauthorised access to the flat.

With regard to an attack on an occupier of one of the flats, this matter has been referred to Sussex Police.

I trust this answers your e-mail.

Yours sincerely

Ian Kedge
Head of Environmental Health