ForumGarden

After a so called ' Whistleblower' went to newspapers and claimed that the IHAT team for the MOD was nothing but a cover up, I myself found myself bizzarly caught up In this case.

I am very pleased and relieved to see that the High Court has rejected allegations against the IHAT team and that they were not Independent.

" A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We welcome the court's finding that IHAT is independent and carries out its duties with competence and integrity."

High Court calls for new system to investigate claims of abuse by British soldiers on Iraqis - Home News - UK - The Independent

Bloody European Convention on Human Rights again......................buggers.

Nothing to do with them.

I.H.A.T. ( Iraq Historical Abuse Team ) from what I have learned over the past few months have done a marvellous job at finding cases of abuse by the British Army and handing that evidence to IHAT lawyers to represent those victims for compensation.

oscar;1429821 wrote: Nothing to do with them.
Second sentence.........your link

In a blow to the Ministry of Defence, the High Court said the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which is currently examining hundreds of allegations, was failing to meet the UK's obligations under Article Two of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to investigate suspicious deaths involving the state.

Bruv;1429857 wrote: Second sentence.........your link The ' Whistleblower' only worked for IHAT for a few months. She quit the job and then asked for her job back. The MOD wouldn't take her back and she went to the newspapers claiming the entire IHAT team was a whitewash and was actually still In the hands of the military police which has been proved to be untrue.

The fact remains that the IHAT team have found cases of abuse and passed those cases to the IHAT lawyers so claiming the entire team was false and a cover up Is surely libel ?

Any one remember a member here called Lou Lou Belle ? She came with a side kick called ' In the know' along with a ' Diane' and 'Melle B'....

She was the one who claimed she was a serving police officer and came here threatening to sue us all for posts about my trial. Turned out all 4 accounts were her.

Back to the IHAT Inquiry which has now cost the tax payer millions.... Taken from the findings.



After hearing the evidence of Louise Thomas, considering the written materials and

seeing for ourselves some of the recordings that were said to have been inaccurately

graded, we are entirely satisfied that the allegations made by Louise Thomas are

without foundation. At the outset of her cross examination by Mr Havers QC she

maintained that the IHAT was not a genuine investigation, but merely a face saving

exercise; it was a cover up. Having heard her evidence and examined the

documentation we regret to conclude that we could place no reliance on her evidence.

She had realised before confirming the allegation set out in paragraph 101 that the

incident had occurred in 2008. She resigned from IHAT not because of concerns

about its work (as she had said in her statement), but to obtain better employment.

When that employment did not materialise, she asked to withdraw her resignation, but

IHAT refused. Her CV submitted to IHAT contained matters (the length of time and

position she had held in previous employment and a negative answer to a question

about integrity issues) which she must have known were untrue. Apart from these

matters which in themselves show that she was not a person who could be relied on to

tell the truth, the careful, thorough and penetrating cross examination of Mr Havers

QC and our own viewing of some of the recordings demonstrated that her evidence as

to the conduct of the analysis and grading by those at IHAT, the extent of the missing

recordings, the attitude of the staff and of the Royal Military Police were without

foundation. We regret to conclude that she put forward an inaccurate account,

probably in a misguided attempt to discredit IHAT.



http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/J ... 0FINAL.pdf

Sounds like a compulsive liar and attention seeker. I'm glad she's no longer a member here, it's just too bad she's causing problems elsewhere.

SnoozeAgain;1432499 wrote: Sounds like a compulsive liar and attention seeker. I'm glad she's no longer a member here, it's just too bad she's causing problems elsewhere.


After the findings of the Inquiry, If It were me, I'd be expecting an arrest for Attempting To Pervert the course of Justice'.

When I was first arrested, It was due to a member of the public calling 999 to ask police for help for me who they deemed to be In trouble, not the so called victim.

During my first Interview under caution, at no time was this 999 call mentioned nor any Interviews with Independent witness's. Only because my lawyer carried out his own Investigation, did he find the transcript to the 999 call and other witness's. Only she carried out the Investigation.

I never denied grabbing the 5ft 9 Inch yob by the collar nor throwing his bike across the road but things she said In Interview under Caution didn't add up.

During my trial, my lawyer under cross examination got the yob's chief witness to admit they had lied to police. He was presenting a case to the judge based on the fact that the village war memorial had suffered at the hands of this particular group of youths for the last 9 months and that day was the culmination of frustration at police doing nothing. In my Interview under caution, she talked about the vandalism to the memorial. During my trial, my lawyer called the Police community inspector and asked him about the problems. He admitted that there had been this group gathering there causing problems for the last two years.then she came In took the oath and flatly denied knowing about any problems there. We were stunned.

After the trial, on legal advice we submitted a formal complaint to the IPCC that she had committed perjury. Two senior detectives Investigated the whole Investigation Into my trial again for four months. The out come was that she had given false Information under oath twice. One quite serious In that they found she accessed call outs on a police computer the day before I was arrested despite stating under oath that she new nothing about It. There were other Instances where the legal team believed she had not told the truth under oath but due to no transcript of the trial, these remain unproven.

In documents I recieved from the IPCC she was found guilty of misconduct In the court room for punching the air In front of many war veterans supporting me.

She gave the reason for giving false evidence under oath as It being her first high profile trial and the nasty attitude of my defence lawyer toward her... oh boo hoo hoo..she claimed she gave false Info because she was tired and stressed after giving evidence for over two hours and the police accepted this plea. Again, on legal advice, we Immediately submitted an appeal.... A packed press gallery and public gallery would testify she was not giving evidence for more than 15 minutes..... over two hours, my arsse.

Then she Immediately left the police force. She claimed It was to start a new business selling baby clothes.

As Spot posted about my trial here on FG and why I joined, I later posted a link to newspaper articles that she had been found guilty of misconduct and had given ' wrong Info' under oath during my trial.

She came here as lou lou belle at the same time as three others, ' In the know', Melle B and Diane outraged that I had dared post a link to those articles.

She started a thread called ' The role of a police officer' In which she waxed lyrical about how she had talked down suicide jumpers and all sorts of nonsence. She claimed she was still a serving police officer.

Then she wrote to Tombstone claiming she was the UK police and demanded he deleted all her threads and mine which sadly he did. I assured him that posing as a police officer to threaten and menace was an arrestable offence.

That was when I first went to the police.

After about a year, It went very quiet for a few months and then a new thread appeared from her telling everyone she was still a police officer, when I knew different, and that I was part of a criminal Investigation along with FG.

Odie then passed me a particually vile e mail Louise Thomas had sent her which the police deemed to be threatening toward me.

The police visited her at her home under the Malicious communication and Harrassment laws. They told me during their visit, she had claimed I had been phoning her with threats. I told the police, simple, get her phone records but they assured me they didn't believe her for a minute.

Tombstone banned her from FG and I was Informed that all 4 accounts were her alone all along here.

I thought that was the last I had heard of this woman until the phone call from Phill Havers QC. He had googled her name and seen she was Investigated for perjury during my trial.

I learned that she left the MOD very shortly after joinig because she thought she had other employment lined up but when that fell through she asked for her job back. When they wouldn't take her back, she went to the papers and made very serious allegations about work colleagues which ended up In a High Court hearing and costing the tax payer millions.

When she left the police force, her parting shot was to make a formal complaint to the IPCC that her police colleagues were giving me Inside Information, trying to get them In trouble. That complaint was very quickly dismissed as false. Sadly, this investigation Into her allegations about the MOD have cost millions to be proven as also false.

I also learned that she did not disclose the perjury Investigation nor the visit from police about harrassing me when applying for the job at the MOD.

I missed all that during my long ban. :p

I wonder if the police give mental health evaluations before hiring, because this woman really should have caused alarms bells to go off.

SnoozeAgain;1432502 wrote: I missed all that during my long ban. :p

I wonder if the police give mental health evaluations before hiring, because this woman really should have caused alarms bells to go off. Prior to joining the police, she also left the Royal Navy.

I know and can prove, she was Investigated by the IPCC before my case and by The Police Standards commission after my case with two other seperate complaints.

She was only In the police force 2 years after finishing her probation period and to be Investigated Internally 3 times In just 4 years Is rather a lot In mho...

The part that annoyed me the most was writing to Odie when she was In her final weeks of life. She knew bloody well Odie wasn't In her right mind and took advantage. Yes, I had my ups and downs with Odie but she sent on her e mails to me because she found them quite disturbing. She'd convinced her that she was a serving police officer also.

Oh well.... the police have everything still on file for me....

I barely knew Odie and I still get weepy whenever her photos randomly show on the home page. I still wonder about her kitties too.

SnoozeAgain;1432505 wrote: I barely knew Odie and I still get weepy whenever her photos randomly show on the home page. I still wonder about her kitties too.


I tried to find out about her cats but the house was sold and the phone disconnected. I did speak to Mike, her ex shortly before and they were doing all they could to get them re-homed through some charity. That was the last I heard...

That woman using Odie In her final weeks like that was sick.

I just really thought that after the Investigation Into the way my trial was concocted and the ensuing visit from our boys In blue, she may have learned a thing or two.... obviously not, but It had to cost the tax payer millions to conclude quote " Louise Thomas is not a person who can be relied on to tell the truth".

Mind you folks.... you can hopefully read the humourous take on my arrest and trial and ensuing nonsence should my book be published.