What does Police Scotland do with its cybercrime unit? X account surpressed. Court defences and counter claims hacked. https://xitter.cf/t.co/ayFvqLn1aj
Scotland
Joined August 2024
- Tweets14.5K
- Following415
- Followers21
- Likes2.4K
Pinned Tweet
Aberdeenshire Local Authority Aberdeen City Local Authority and Falkirk Local Authority have been caught out big style over a six year. writing false statements into inquisitorial processes for courts writing statements that create court appearances writing statements that would get you killed in the street whilst utilising friends and family to attack. The First Minister for Scotland should have listened to Kimberly. Should have listened to her a long time ago. Because the courts are out. The idea of getting a fair trial is impossible. And it's now all in the public interest. I'm really embarrassed and sorry that it's come to this. But no one can starve every day for six years. Have their dogs killed. legs broken, suffer heart attacks, key IA strokes, or because some ring wants to surround him as the First Minister stands by and goes "nothing to see here".
Kimberly James retweeted
IMPORTANT THREAD
An $18-20m ransom paid in three days, with cyber insurers involved, is not normal. And the Quinn Insurance to AIG/Laya chronology deserves a proper look at the transaction records.
🔹The reported $18–20 million payment by Weil Gotshal was exceptionally large when it occurred in May 2026.
🔹Even more unusual was the reported speed: just three days.
🔹According to The Insurer, the payment was substantially above the $1–8 million demands historically associated with the Luna Moth extortion group.
🔹The publication also reported that the three-day resolution was atypical for a payment of that magnitude involving cyber insurers.
🔹 One of the more intriguing connections arising from the reported upheaval at Weil, Gotshal & Manges concerns Michael Aiello, the senior corporate partner who departed for Cravath in September 2026.
🔹Aiello was not simply a longstanding partner at Weil. In March 2009, he was among the lawyers advising American International Group (AIG) on its government-supported restructuring following the 2008 financial crisis.
🔹He was also identified as Weil’s representative on AIG’s global restructuring steering group, which oversaw strategic matters including the disposal of businesses.
🔹At the same time, Weil was acting for Lehman Brothers in its historic bankruptcy proceedings and advising AIG on the restructuring of its enormous derivatives exposures.
🔹Both institutions operated in financial markets directly relevant to the collapse of Anglo Irish Bank and the circumstances surrounding Sean Quinn’s contracts for difference.
🔹There is another connection worth examining.
🔹Quinn Insurance was a significant competitor of AIG, particularly in the UK solicitors’ professional indemnity market.
🔹In October 2008, contemporary insurance-industry reporting identified Quinn and AIG as two of the principal beneficiaries of that year’s renewal season.
🔹Quinn’s aggressive pricing and rapid expansion had made it a disruptive force in established insurance markets.
🔹Quinn Insurance entered administration in March 2010. Its general insurance operations were subsequently acquired by a Liberty Mutual-led joint venture involving Anglo Irish Bank.
🔹Meanwhile, the former Quinn Healthcare business, which originated in Quinn Group’s acquisition of BUPA Ireland, eventually became Laya Healthcare.
🔹In 2015, AIG acquired Laya, bringing a former Quinn Group insurance business into the ownership of the American insurance giant.
🔹The chronology therefore raises some interesting questions.
🔹AIG was receiving extraordinary government support while competing with Quinn in specialist insurance markets.
🔹Weil was advising AIG at the highest levels of its restructuring. Weil also represented Lehman Brothers, one of the financial institutions involved in Sean Quinn’s substantial Anglo share-related CFD exposures.
🔹Quinn subsequently lost control of his insurance businesses, and AIG eventually acquired one of the businesses that had formed part of his group.
🔹Now, in 2026, Aiello has departed Weil amid reports of a substantial cyber-extortion payment and wider instability at the firm. CVs of Weil staff have flooded the market- unusual.
🔹None of this establishes that Weil, AIG or Aiello participated in any improper arrangement concerning Quinn Insurance.
🔹Nor is there evidence that the reported cyberattack involved Quinn-related documents. Weil has not been identified as an adviser on AIG’s 2015 acquisition of Laya.
🔹But the overlapping institutions, legal advisers, financial exposures and subsequent changes in ownership warrant a careful examination of the underlying transaction records.
🔹The central question is whether the dismantling of the Quinn Group can be fully explained by its documented financial difficulties and regulatory interventions, or whether there were additional commercial interests, transactions and conflicts that have never been adequately scrutinised.
@Wftproof @ArturNadol7566
Kimberly James retweeted
⚡️ In response to London’s hostile anti-Russian policy, several executives of British defence companies have been added to Russia’s entry ban list.
The ruling Labour Party apparently has different budget priorities than the needs of the British people.
t.me/MFARussia/33029
Chapter 6: The Visit – 15 September 2026
Two officers came into the house. The carer had asked them in because he wanted a record of what he had been trying to report for years: interference with documents sent to the Housing and Property Chamber, sheriff court and tribunal processes; emails that arrived hours late or arrived incoherent; middle-man attacks he said clerks had also noticed; devices and accounts that he said were systematically shut down after reports of hacking. He told them there were multiple layers of recording—CCTV, body camera, screen captures—because earlier material had been interfered with and he no longer trusted that a single copy would survive. He mentioned roughly forty terabytes of archived material across drives. He said the same pattern had appeared with a new BT router and bank payments that showed as made but were not accepted. He wanted the cybercrime unit involved and a report lodged with the courts.
The officers tried to narrow the focus. They asked what had happened this time, what they could actually take away and investigate today. The carer answered that the history was long—back to 2017—and that the volume of material existed because each previous attempt to lodge evidence had itself been recorded when it failed. He said he did not expect them to watch thousands of hours; he wanted them to accept a specific piece of evidence he was ready to show and then decide what further steps were needed. The conversation kept circling. The carer described interruptions, said he was being cut off mid-sentence, and characterised the officers’ approach as patronising and as creating a false narrative. One officer replied that the volume of data was unmanageable and that they needed something concrete they could deal with. The carer said that was exactly the point he had been making and that the suggestion he expected them to sit and watch forty terabytes was ridiculous.
Kimberly was present. The carer repeatedly stated that she was becoming upset by the manner of the exchange and that he was her carer. He referenced section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and the need to adjust behaviour so that a person with global developmental delay and a history of panic was not placed at further disadvantage. The officers asked whether they should speak to her separately or leave. The carer said no, that she should not be left in the situation, and that the officers’ presence and interruptions were what was distressing her. He said he had had a TIA the previous Friday and was standing longer than he normally could. The exchange grew sharper. The carer accused the officers of deliberate attempts to create conflict and of running a false narrative over the recording. One officer said the accusation of psychological abuse was serious and denied it. The carer asked them to leave the property. They remained outside for a time. He recorded the time as 10:06 and said he would phone an ambulance.
On the tape the carer returns to the same themes that appear in the August removal recording: years of documented attempts to get evidence into court and tribunal processes that he says never arrived intact; police officers he says created false records (including portraying him as a sacked officer); a ten-year dog ban imposed by a named sheriff; repeated refusals by mental-health services to examine him or Kimberly; and claims that hate-crime and organised-crime reports were not taken. He states that good officers had privately told him nothing corresponding to the civil allegations appeared on the systems. These remain his recorded statements. The officers’ responses on the day are limited to attempts to focus the complaint, statements that the volume of material could not be reviewed in one visit, and denials that they were creating a false narrative or deliberately upsetting Kimberly.
The Equality Act 2010 section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to the exercise of public functions, including policing. The carer expressly invoked it in relation to Kimberly’s disability and his own recent medical episode. The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 places a duty on the local council to inquire where an adult is believed to be at risk; the carer states that no such support had been forthcoming over many years. Computer Misuse Act 1990 offences and data-protection duties under the Data Protection Act 2018 are engaged by the hacking allegations he was attempting to report. Contempt of court and interference with the administration of justice are raised by his claims that documents lodged in ongoing Housing and Property Chamber and sheriff-court proceedings were altered or delayed. The tape ends with the officers outside, the carer still recording, and Kimberly described as distressed.
Two officers came into the house. The carer had asked them in because he wanted a record of what he had been trying to report for years: interference with documents sent to the Housing and Property Chamber, sheriff court and tribunal processes; emails that arrived hours late or arrived incoherent; middle-man attacks he said clerks had also noticed; devices and accounts that he said were systematically shut down after reports of hacking. He told them there were multiple layers of recording—CCTV, body camera, screen captures—because earlier material had been interfered with and he no longer trusted that a single copy would survive. He mentioned roughly forty terabytes of archived material across drives. He said the same pattern had appeared with a new BT router and bank payments that showed as made but were not accepted. He wanted the cybercrime unit involved and a report lodged with the courts.
The officers tried to narrow the focus. They asked what had happened this time, what they could actually take away and investigate today. The carer answered that the history was long—back to 2017—and that the volume of material existed because each previous attempt to lodge evidence had itself been recorded when it failed. He said he did not expect them to watch thousands of hours; he wanted them to accept a specific piece of evidence he was ready to show and then decide what further steps were needed. The conversation kept circling. The carer described interruptions, said he was being cut off mid-sentence, and characterised the officers’ approach as patronising and as creating a false narrative. One officer replied that the volume of data was unmanageable and that they needed something concrete they could deal with. The carer said that was exactly the point he had been making and that the suggestion he expected them to sit and watch forty terabytes was ridiculous.
Kimberly was present. The carer repeatedly stated that she was becoming upset by the manner of the exchange and that he was her carer. He referenced section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and the need to adjust behaviour so that a person with global developmental delay and a history of panic was not placed at further disadvantage. The officers asked whether they should speak to her separately or leave. The carer said no, that she should not be left in the situation, and that the officers’ presence and interruptions were what was distressing her. He said he had had a TIA the previous Friday and was standing longer than he normally could. The exchange grew sharper. The carer accused the officers of deliberate attempts to create conflict and of running a false narrative over the recording. One officer said the accusation of psychological abuse was serious and denied it. The carer asked them to leave the property. They remained outside for a time. He recorded the time as 10:06 and said he would phone an ambulance.
On the tape the carer returns to the same themes that appear in the August removal recording: years of documented attempts to get evidence into court and tribunal processes that he says never arrived intact; police officers he says created false records (including portraying him as a sacked officer); a ten-year dog ban imposed by a named sheriff; repeated refusals by mental-health services to examine him or Kimberly; and claims that hate-crime and organised-crime reports were not taken. He states that good officers had privately told him nothing corresponding to the civil allegations appeared on the systems. These remain his recorded statements. The officers’ responses on the day are limited to attempts to focus the complaint, statements that the volume of material could not be reviewed in one visit, and denials that they were creating a false narrative or deliberately upsetting Kimberly.
The Equality Act 2010 section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to the exercise of public functions, including policing. The carer expressly invoked it in relation to Kimberly’s disability and his own recent medical episode. The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 places a duty on the local council to inquire where an adult is believed to be at risk; the carer states that no such support had been forthcoming over many years. Computer Misuse Act 1990 offences and data-protection duties under the Data Protection Act 2018 are engaged by the hacking allegations he was attempting to report. Contempt of court and interference with the administration of justice are raised by his claims that documents lodged in ongoing Housing and Property Chamber and sheriff-court proceedings were altered or delayed. None of these allegations are tested or answered inside the recording. The tape ends with the officers outside, the carer still recording, and Kimberly described as distressed.
Kimberly James retweeted
Channel 4 Dispatches went undercover inside the Financial Ombudsman Service @financialombuds. What they filmed should have shut the place down.
Their own staff said this on camera:
"I'm not proud to admit it but I've done it myself. Just taken a chance and just slung stuff through, with any old decision."
"You're more likely to meet your targets if you're not upholding them."
11,000 cases fell into a black hole for two years. Some of those letters said "I am going to lose my house."
@UKParliament demanded answers. Baroness Ros Altmann called it shocking. MPs threatened a full inquiry.
FOS said the footage was "not representative."
Nothing changed.
Fast forward to today. My own complaint against @rsagroup / @IntactInsurance is now being formally handled by Gary Smith @G8GWS of @MeridianLegals.
Gary is the lawyer leading the FOS Litigation Group, a group built on over 1,000 documented FOS failures. He is preparing a judicial review of the FOS.
My case has been submitted by Meridian as my regulated representative because what happened to me fits the same pattern Channel 4 filmed.
If you have had a complaint dismissed by the FOS and you believe it was handled without proper scrutiny, contact Gary directly at Meridian Legal Services.
0121 516 0675
@MeridianLegals
The full transcript of what @C4Dispatches filmed inside the FOS is in the comments.
Read it and tell me this is not exactly what is still happening today.
Kimberly James retweeted
I've Exposed Modern Hospitals & They Tried to Silence Me rumble.com/v7hfsus-ive-expos…
Kimberly James retweeted
For First Minister John Swinney — a public record, not a plea
Hate Crime Awareness Week is 10–17 October 2026. You publish Police Scotland’s numbers under section 15 of the Act your government passed. Kimberley Anne Baff does not appear in those numbers. James Fraser does not appear. Two dogs do not appear. This article is the file that never became a statistic.
Kimberley has global developmental delay. James is her carer. They spoke out about child abuse. After that the same sequence followed them from Falkirk to Slamannan to Boddam to Aberdeen to Denny: landlords who start co-operative and turn after a call; neighbours who gather; dogs kicked, bricked, fireworked, poisoned; CCTV that vanishes; police who attend and do not record; a mental-health stamp instead of a crime report.
They did not drift north. By late 2017 they understood the method well enough to choose Boddam on purpose. A new village. Cameras ready. A landlord with a known local name. Removal quotes ran from thirteen hundred to over two thousand pounds. A grant for people fleeing hostility was supposed to cover it. An unsolicited five-hundred-pound offer arrived. They took it and filmed everything: packed flight cases, sealed and labelled; the vans swerving; the suite snapping; eight boxes of court files, hard drives and heirlooms that never came off the van. Kathleen and Robert Balloch next door, Mandy Watson, Amy Greaves across the road watched the unload. One of the men spat at Mrs Balloch’s feet when she asked for quiet. She decided there and then that the new arrivals should go.
James filmed the walk to the bus stop: more than fifty vehicles, most of them slowing, faces turned, some shouting. At Peterhead station a sergeant first spoke of arrest on the removal men’s word. The pre-pack footage, the neighbour accounts and the damage photographs changed the tone. Two constables came to the house. One checked the neighbours and came back aligned. Talk of organised elements and hate-crime indicators. Assurances of statements that same shift. Those steps did not happen. The damaged property stayed in the house for the whole tenancy. More than five hundred calls followed — dogs, gatherings, the same names. When the systems were checked later, the calls that existed were mostly theirs. The Chamber eviction papers spoke of dozens of neighbour complaints to police and more than a hundred to the landlord in a short window after arrival.
That is how a designed record becomes an official story that the tenants were the problem.
The solicitor, September to November 2019
Ian Jane, court-appointed, Peterhead. 5 September, 9 September, 10 September.
Kimberley is not charged with 12 July. Charge 5 is hers: in charge of Toby, dangerously out of control, ran at Lynda McGee at work, bit to injury and permanent disfigurement. No film of a bite. McGee’s audio. Mrs Ballack filmed the aftermath, not the incident. McGee puts Ballack at the side of the house. Ballack puts herself at the front door and calls the other account a lie. In the First-tier Tribunal both had put Lisa at the side. Two witnesses give sufficiency. Credibility is the whole case. A doctor confirms an injury on presentation, not what caused it. Jane’s own words: if the Sheriff does not find those two credible she must acquit.
The photograph and 20 August were already in court on day one. The charge date is 6 September. Facebook said Toby bit the postie on 20 August. The post came down. Videos were cut to a 6 September walk. Jane says the Sheriff knew the date because he had put 20 August to the postmistress himself. Questioning on the date was allowed once and shut the second time.
Lisa Ballack is the only defence witness he then thought mattered. She refused. She denied 20 August. She said the picture was faked after Messenger. Jane would not cite a witness likely to get in the box and sink both accused. Citation was his decision. He never heard the recording they said they had.
Dog notices of 6 July: one execution for two orders, James’s name only, served by the officer who did not decide them. Jane would ask the Sheriff to desert those charges and would not call the other warden to fix the Crown case. No notice on Kimberley. Dogs said to be vet-registered in her name.
19 November 2019 James is on camera submitting a complaint about Ian Jane. Eighth year without heating. Taking goods to Cash Converters for food. Social enquiry that would not come to see how they actually lived. The complaint is the record that the appointed lawyer was not going to lead the thirty witnesses or the 2,348 gigabytes.
A behaviourist named James was willing to assess. A Rottweiler that launches twenty yards and means it does not leave a single six-centimetre line with no puncture and no bruise half an hour later. They did not trust the court-appointed solicitor to get that man into the kennels. The dogs are dead. That report was never written.
What the law already required
Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 ss.1, 4, 11, 15 — disability; perception of the victim or any other person; the annual report that only counts what was recorded.
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 s.38 — a course of conduct.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.3. Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 — notice on the person to whom it applies; one certificate cannot cover two orders.
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 s.19 — unnecessary suffering of Cole and Toby.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ss.176, 263 — appeal; prior inconsistent statement.
ECHR Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14.
Equality Act 2010 ss.6, 15, 20, 29, 149.
Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 — eight winters without heat is not a lifestyle.
Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014.
Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 s.32.
The question this week is for you
If Police Scotland will not record five hundred calls as a disability-aggravated course of conduct, section 15 has nothing to give you.
If the appointed solicitor will not lead the date collision, the audio, or the behaviourist, the Sheriff never tries the case that was on the productions.
If the removal men wreck the files and the station promises statements that never arrive, the Chamber later reads only the neighbour tally.
If the dogs are destroyed, the single line is never put against a Rottweiler jaw.
If a complaint about that solicitor is filed on 19 November 2019 from a house with no heat, and the file still ends without the witnesses, the remedy was already gone.
You can direct a recording review of the 2017–2019 Boddam file and the 2022 Falkirk Housing Needs emails under the Act you are marking this week. You can require COPFS to say what became of the perjury point Jane said he put to the Fiscal on 9 September 2019. You can require an account of why two dead assistance and rescue dogs were treated as the end of the evidence.
If you will not, put that in writing before 17 October. Then the week will at least have an honest number: one disabled woman, one carer, two dogs, and a First Minister who was shown the file and left it off the list.
#NationalHCAW
@ScotGovFM
[email protected]
Peterhead · Boddam · Slamannan · FAL-SD86-25 · FTS/HPC/EV/24/2619
Kimberly James retweeted
Explosive evidence from @CalumA_Steele, former General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, as SNP ministers seek approval for new police misconduct regulations.
He says hearing chairs have been pressured to deliver predetermined punishments, with career progression used as leverage, and investigations pursued with dismissal in mind rather than establishing the truth.
And what are ministers proposing? New rules that preserve a two-tier system, denying junior officers the independent legally qualified hearing chairs recommended by the Angiolini Review.
Why should the most senior officers have safeguards denied to frontline officers?
These allegations demand investigation. And ministers must explain why they are pressing ahead with regulations that fail to address such fundamental questions of fairness.
Parliament should not be asked to sign this off without answers.
@ScotPolAuth
@ScotPoliceSupts
@ScotsPolFed
@neilcgray
1/n
I have taken the unusual step of writing to the @SP_Justice ahead of its meeting on Wednesday. The issues before it are simply too important to ignore and risk embedding fundamental unfairness, opacity, and exorbitant costs into police misconduct proceedings.
Police Report Summary
Subject: Formal complaint regarding treatment at Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) office, Peterhead, on 22 January 2019
Complainants: Miss Kimberly Baff (described as a person with a disability) and Mr James Fraser (carer)
Reference: PT18001700
Date of incident: 22 January 2019
Location: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service office, Peterhead, Scotland
Source document: Written complaint dated 22/01/2019 by Kimberly Baff assisted by Carer James Fraser
1. Parties and Background
Miss Kimberly Baff – described in the complaint as “a girl with disability”, resident at 7 Dundonnie Street, Boddam, Peterhead, AB42 3NT.
Mr James Fraser – carer, resident at 6 Simpson Street, Camelon, Falkirk, FK1 4BU. Acted in capacity as carer during the visit and co-signed the complaint.
COPFS Peterhead office – location of the incident.
Unidentified female staff member – referred to throughout as “the lady” / “a sectary”. No name is provided.
Other bodies referenced: Procurator Fiscal (Peterhead and Falkirk), Lord Advocate, Police Service of Scotland, Falkirk Sheriff Court, Scottish Ministers.
The complainants state they attended the office to make an appointment to speak with the fiscal or any member of staff who would take a statement “anent complaints against the Police”. They also reference being witnesses and accused persons in other cases and difficulties raising complaints against multiple officers of the Police Service of Scotland.
2. Account of Incident (as stated by complainants)
On 22 January 2019, Miss Baff and Mr Fraser entered the COPFS Peterhead office. They were met by a female staff member who smiled and asked how she could help.
They state they began to explain that they wished to make an appointment to speak with the fiscal or any staff member to provide a statement regarding complaints against the Police. They allege they were interrupted and told the fiscal would not meet them because they were witnesses in a case and accused in other cases.
Further allegations include:
Repeated interruptions when Mr Fraser attempted to refer to High Court authorities concerning communications between an accused and the prosecutor and the taking of additional evidence between court dates.
Advice to speak to solicitors, despite the complainants stating they had been unable to find a solicitor willing to take on the issues.
Comments that “you two have issues” and that the staff member was not legally qualified.
A patronising and condescending response (“did you”) when Mr Fraser mentioned prior meetings with the Procurator Fiscal in Falkirk.
Advice to contact the Procurator Fiscal in Falkirk.
The complainants state they became upset, moved to leave, and informed the staff member that they would try contacting the Falkirk fiscal as suggested. As they approached the front door, the staff member is alleged to have come from her office “at speed” and “gave chase” after them, shouting “excuse me” repeatedly and “I beg your pardon”, and continuing onto the street with words to the effect of asking whether they were not going to speak to her after she had spoken to them “no bother”.
Miss Baff states she “panicked, panic and fear that had been struck into me and I felt myself tightening to a freeze.” Mr Fraser is said to have instructed her to walk forward and keep going.
3. Complaints Raised
The complainants lodge a formal complaint and request that the matter be investigated. They describe the behaviour as:
An “impediment to justice”.
Lacking in “professional decorum, respect and integrity”.
Part of a “modus operandi” and “alamode” of treatment by certain elements of the state when addressing legal issues.
Linked to “two highly peculiar decisions” at Falkirk Sheriff Court that remain unremedied, which they place within a claim of “persecution and torture by the state”.
Ultra vires, asserting that “The Scottish Ministers do not give authority for cases to be brought in this way.”
They further state that difficulties accessing the service impede their ability to raise complaints against multiple officers of the Police Service of Scotland, some of whom “then went on to raise bias and malicious and prejudice complaints to the prosecutor which sees these offences being brought against us both.”
4. Relevant Legislative and Procedural Context (as referenced or potentially engaged)
Equality Act 2010 (disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, provision of services) – engaged by the description of Miss Baff as a person with a disability and the alleged treatment.
Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR Article 6 (fair hearing / access to justice) – engaged by the alleged impediment to raising complaints and communicating with the prosecutor.
Scotland Act 1998 ss. 29, 54, 57 – engaged by the explicit ultra vires allegation against Scottish Ministers / manner of bringing cases.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 – engaged by references to communications between accused and prosecutor and the role of the Procurator Fiscal.
No independent verification of the allegations has been conducted. The account is drawn solely from the written complaint dated 22 January 2019.
5. Summary for Police Consideration
This report records the complainants’ account of their treatment on 22 January 2019 at the COPFS Peterhead office while attempting to raise complaints against the Police Service of Scotland. The allegations concern obstructive and conflict-creating conduct by an unidentified staff member, treatment of a person with a disability and her carer, and an asserted link to wider issues of access to justice and prior court decisions at Falkirk Sheriff Court.
The original complaint letter is the sole source document provided. No additional supporting evidence, CCTV, witness statements, or contemporaneous records are attached to this summary.
Stitched Up ! ABERDEEN rumble.com/v7heqi0-stitched-…
Kimberly James retweeted
THIS IS FORMER MET POLICE’S JEREMY LAXTON AND JACK ADDIS!!!!
THEY FORMER MET POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN JAILED AFTER ADMITTING CONSPIRING WITH A SERVING CHIEF INSPECTOR TO DISTRIBUTE OR SHOW THOUSANDS OF INDECENT IMAGES OF CH1LDREN!!!!
THE PAIR, BOTH THEN AGED 63, HAD PREVIOUSLY SERVED ALONGSIDE CHIEF INSPECTOR RICHARD WATKINSON, 49, WHO TOOK HIS OWN LIFE BEFORE HE COULD BE CHARGED!!!!
SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT HEARD THAT WHILE ON DUTY, WATKINSON EVEN SHARED POLICE INFORMATION AND AN IMAGE OF A MISSING 14-YEAR-OLD BOY WITH LAXTON FOR THEIR SEXU4L GRATIFICATION!!!!
YES, A SERVING CHIEF INSPECTOR WAS ACCUSED OF EXPLOIT1NG CONFIDENTIAL POLICE INFORMATION ABOUT A MISSING CHILD FOR SEXU4L PURPOSES!!!!
LAXTON WAS JAILED FOR FIVE YEARS AND NINE MONTHS WHILE ADDIS RECEIVED THREE YEARS AND NINE MONTHS BEHIND BARS!!!!
THREE MEN WHO HAD SERVED IN THE MET POLICE WERE LINKED TO THE CONSPIRACY INVOLVING CHILD SEXU4L ABUSE IMAGES!!!!
TWO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND JAILED, WHILE THE SERVING CHIEF INSPECTOR DIED BEFORE HE COULD FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES!!!!
THESE WERE MEN WHO HAD BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH UPHOLDING THE LAW AND PROTECTING THE PUBLIC!!!!
Credit Predator awareness
For First Minister for Scotland Mr John Swinney 05 01 2025 rumble.com/v66dkug-for-first…
