POLICE MARKERS: -

1. OUR REQUEST SHEET: --

ABOUT OUR REQUEST SHEET:

· The reason for including the "OUR REQUEST SHEET" in this document is to ensure clarity and specificity in the Claimant's requests to relevant authorities regarding the handling of their data and records.

NATIONAL SYSTEMS - DELETION (PNC, IDENT1, NDNAD):

· The Claimant's primary request within this section is the deletion of their data from the national systems, which encompass vital databases such as the Police National Computer (PNC), IDENT1, and the National DNA Database (NDNAD).

PNC RECORD AMENDMENTS:

· Within this request, the Claimant seeks amendments to any records present on the Police National Computer (PNC) that relate to this case. This is to ensure that the data accurately reflects the events and circumstances involved.

LOCAL SYSTEMS DELETION:

· The Claimant's request for the deletion of their data from local police systems is vital in safeguarding their privacy and ensuring that their personal information is not misused or retained unnecessarily.

LOCAL SYSTEMS - AMENDMENT OF INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN:

· To achieve accuracy and completeness, the Claimant also requests amendments to any information contained within local police systems concerning this case. This ensures that the data held at the local level aligns with the facts and details presented.

2. ABOUT POLICE IDENTIFICATION MARKERS:

About police identification markers:

· The inclusion of information regarding police identification markers is crucial due to its significance in this case. These markers serve as unique codes or symbols used by law enforcement agencies for identification purposes. Further details are necessary to fully understand their role and implications.

3. ABOUT THE ARRESTS AND INTERRUPTIONS MADE BY POLICE:

About Arrests and Interruptions Made by Police:

· The reason for addressing the arrests and interruptions made by the police in this document is to provide a comprehensive account of events and their impact. By doing so, the Claimant aims to ensure that all pertinent information is presented accurately to the relevant authorities and that any necessary actions are taken.

IDENTIFICATION MARKERS

1 OF 1

POLICE MARKERS: -

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (National Computer Nominal Report Nominal Details)

CASE (A1)

· We are writing this formally request for the removal of the details below & that of its other affiliated documentation –

Nub 1

Classification

Input Details

Criminal Record Office Number

49823/97M

Police National Computer ID

97/99378V

First Name(s)

Simon Paul

Last Name

Cordell

Date of Birth

26/01/81

Place of Birth

Enfield

Nationality:

United Kingdom

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below: --

1. Introduction to Amended ACRO Report Requests

· This document represents an amended version of the original ACRO report, addressing disputed sections and integrating updated evidential findings. It serves to clarify and fortify the request for the removal of specific entries from the Police National Computer (PNC) Nominal Report and related documentation, ensuring compliance with current legal standards and promoting accurate data representation. This initiative aligns with the principles of fairness, rehabilitation, and reintegration for reformed individuals.

2. Key Legal Frameworks and Eligibility

· As established under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (updated 28 October 2023), the removal of spent convictions depends on defined criteria. Only the originating police force or judicial authority may authorize Court Conviction deletions. Other forms of recorded data, including non-conviction details, may be eligible for deletion under the Record Deletion Process (RDP), provided specific grounds are met. These include:

a. Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND): Eligible for deletion if deemed appropriate.

b. Cautions (Adult and Juvenile): Includes Adult Cautions, Youth Cautions, and Conditional Cautions.

c. Warnings and Reprimands: Final warnings and reprimands issued to juveniles can be reviewed.

d. Biometric Data: DNA, fingerprints, or other biometric details unlawfully retained or obtained under mistaken identity.

e. Non-conviction Qualifying Offences: Specific retention approvals by the Biometrics Commissioner or District Judge for certain non-convictions may qualify.

3. Claimant's Unique Case Context

· The Claimant's case demonstrates a multifaceted combination of factors, including:

a. Spent Convictions: eligible under the ROA framework.

b. Non-Convictions: such as cases marked "No Further Action" (NFA) or resulting in "Not Guilty" verdicts.

c. Errors, Discrepancies, And Outdated Records: within the documentation that impose undue prejudice on rehabilitation and progress.

d. Plea Dates: recorded incorrectly or inconsistently, further adding to the inaccuracies in the Claimant's records.

e. Offence Dates: recorded incorrectly or inconsistently, further adding to the inaccuracies in the Claimant's records.

f. Outdated Addresses And Other Police Markers: retained in official documentation, contributing to administrative errors and confusion in the handling of the Claimant's case.

g. Files Unrelated To Any Arrest Or Conviction: yet included and maintained in the Claimant's records without clear justification or relevance.

h. DNA Evidence: stated as destroyed but later discovered to have been retained unlawfully or obtained under cases the Claimant has successfully contested and won.

i. Data Labeled As “Disposable”: with specific references to key entries, including the deletion of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) marked as disposable. This deletion obscured vital evidence that had the potential to prove the Claimant's innocence in certain disputed matters.

4. Rights Under GDPR and Data Protection Act

· The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act provide individuals with robust rights to request the erasure of personal data that is obsolete or processed unlawfully. Leveraging these provisions, the Claimant is seeking not only the removal of redundant records but also the correction of inaccuracies to foster personal advancement without the stigma of outdated entries.

5. Purpose and Impact of This Request

· This request underscores the critical importance of upholding accurate and lawful data processing, respecting legal pathways, and supporting the principles of rehabilitation. By ensuring data accuracy and addressing errors, the Claimant’s goal is to secure a transparent and fair resolution. The removal of specific entries will empower the Claimant to advance in life, free from the burdens of irrelevant or misleading records that obstruct personal and professional opportunities.

§ Re: Our Request is for:

1. The Removal of “The Police National Computer Nominal Report Nominal Details & that of its other affiliated documentation.”

2. Legal Grounds for Removal:

a. The ROA Provides a Framework:

· For the removal of spent convictions, and the Now Claimants Case’s falls within the eligibility criteria.

b. Cases Marked As "NFA":

· (No Further Action) or "Not Guilty" should typically be removed from the ACRO report.

c. The Data Protection Act and General Data Protection Regulation “GDPR” Grant Individuals:

· The Legal Rights to request the erasure of their personal data in certain situations, including the removal of old or irrelevant criminal records.

Schedule 18 Offences:

· To provide clarity, The Now Claimant confirms that his conviction’s do not fall under the category of Schedule 18 offences, as specified in the Sentencing Act 2020.

Request for Erasure Under GDPR:

· Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), The Now Claimant is exercising his Legal Rights to request the deletion or removal of personal data where there is no compelling reason for its continued processing. I believe the inclusion of the “Nominal Report Nominal Details” on my PNC Record no longer serves a lawful purpose and may cause unwarranted prejudice.

Request Process: --

a. We formally recognizing this request for erasure.

b. We kindly request a response with your decisions made within: -- “One Month,” as stipulated by “GDPR”.

c. If any compensation requests are attached within the claim sheets, we request decisions within: -- “One Month” after your initial response.

d. We understand that the Legal Right to erasure is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances. However, the Now Claimants Case meets the criteria for removal as outlined in the GDPR.

e. Upon approval, we expect the prompt execution of the erasure and appropriate communication to any third parties with whom the data may have been shared with.

f. We appreciate your attention to this matter and request that you conduct a thorough review of this case in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. We believe the removal of the specified details will contribute to the principles of rehabilitation and allow the Now Claimant the legal Right to move forward in his life & without the burden of an outdated and irrelevant record.

g. If you require any additional information or documentation to facilitate this process, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are committed to providing any necessary details other than what we have already provided below to support the expeditious resolution of this matter.

h. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request and we look forward to a positive outcome.

Nub 1

ITEMS

Police National Computer Nominal Report Nominal Details

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

END

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Personal Description)

CASE (B2)

Nub 2

ITEMS

Personal Description

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. Personal Description Erasure Request

Upon Our thorough examination of the data compiled within the Acro Report, initially created by police members, and subsequently archived for intelligence purposes on him and that is also related to this current case involving Mr. Simon Paul Cordell, certain significant aspects have emerged such as: --

a. The Acro Report exhibits a distinct category labelled as “Personal Description,” highlighting information that falls under this classification.

b. This section explicitly pertains to The Claimant's Legal Right to Erasure Under the General Data Protection Regulation “GDPR”.

c. The Now Claimant fervently seeks the opportunity to review and ultimately have granted the requested erasure, contingent on its acceptance and agreement.

Supporting this request, we include the following compelling reasons as presented, and substantiated with evidential artifacts where applicable:

B. The Claimants Grounds for Erasure:

Fairness and Unproven Suspicion:

· The claimant insists that it is inequitable for the police to utilize personal descriptions solely acquired on the “Basis of Suspicion Alone.” This includes instances of arrests that did not culminate in criminal charges.

Unsubstantiated Court Cases:

· Any instance where the police have brought a case to court against the claimant without establishing guilt raises concerns. This is exacerbated by situations where “No Conclusive Evidence Was Presented.”

Unfair PNC Record:

· The existing Police National Computer (PNC) record unduly Casts “A Negative Shadow” on the claimant's reputation, unjustly branding him with offenses for which the police lacked substantial evidence.

Professional and Personal Consequences:

· These “Unwarranted Arrests” have inflicted significant professional and personal setbacks on the claimant. His time has been consumed by proving innocence during police confrontations, and his reputation tarnished, eroding client prospects and future potential.

Psychological and Family Impact:

· The claimant's life has been “Perpetually Marred by Unwarranted Police Attention,” resulting in strained family relationships, emotional trauma, and estrangement.

Breach of Company Policy:

· The police have exhibited a pattern of retaining information “Beyond Standard Operational Procedures,” contrary to company policies. The claimant's request aligns with these policies for data removal.

C. Specific Erasure and Correction Requests:

The Now Claimant Requests the Removal Of:

· Such data pertaining to personal descriptions.

The Now Claimant Requests the Correction Of:

· Any “Inaccuracies Present” in the mentioned data.

D. Privacy Concerns:

· In light of growing privacy concerns and data protection regulations, erasing personal descriptions contributes to safeguarding individual privacy and preventing potential misuse of personal information.

E. Identity Theft Prevention:

· By eliminating personal descriptions, the risk of identity theft and impersonation is mitigated, ensuring the claimant's security.

F. Legal Accuracy:

· Ensuring data accuracy and relevance is paramount for maintaining the legal integrity of information.

G. Immigration and Visa Applications:

· The absence of unnecessary personal descriptions prevents any inadvertent complications in immigration and visa-related processes.

H. Employment Background Checks:

· Stripping out personal descriptions prevents irrelevant data from influencing employment background checks, fostering fair hiring practices.

I. Credit and Financial Matters:

· Data precision is crucial for financial dealings and credit assessments, underscoring the need for accurate, pertinent information.

J. Government Benefits and Services:

· Accurate data without extraneous personal descriptions ensures seamless access to government benefits and services without unnecessary hindrances.

K. For these compelling reasons, the following Retained DATA is put forth for deletion:

The Claimant Requests the Deletion of The Following:

Ø Personal Description =

· Height: F511 (M180)

· Build: Proportionate

· Shoe Size: B9.5(E44)

· Eye Color: Brown

· Glasses: No Glasses

· Handed: Right

· Hair: Collar Length/Black/Plaited

· Accent: London

· Facial Hair: Beard/Black

L. In Conclusion

· In conclusion to, the request for erasure of personal descriptions is substantiated by a series of valid concerns encompassing fairness, security, legal integrity, and various practical implications. This appeal aligns not only with the claimant's rights but also with broader principles of data protection and privacy.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Driver Details)

CASE (C3)

Nub 3

ITEMS

Driver Details

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the “DRIVER DETAILS” Contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same “Grossly-Term-Refs” as the requests prior made in part “Nub 1” of this “Official Document” but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows: --

B. Reason One: --

· “ACRO Reports” from the (Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office.) “Do Not Contain Driver Details,” such as driver's license information or records of traffic violations. These reports primarily focus on an individual's criminal history, including details of arrests, convictions, and related legal matters. Driver details are typically maintained by separate government agencies responsible for motor vehicle records and traffic violations.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Aliases Alias 1)

CASE (D4)

Nub 4

ITEMS

Aliases Alias 1

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Now Claimant Requests a Comprehensive Review of the “ALIASES ALIAS 1” section contained within this attached file associated with the ACRO Report that the police hold in the Now Claimants Name.

B. When the “ACRO Report” is Subjected to Assessment by any Relevant Official Persons, our request is for the categorization of this “ALIASES ALIAS 1” to mirror the same as the information under the same as “Grossly-Term-Refs” that We articulated in the earlier outlined “Nub 1” section of this “Official Document.”

C. We acknowledge that the police include known aliases in individual “ACRO Report,” but still substantial grounds compel us to seek the removal of such “DATA” out of any Police National System or that of their archives that is associated within the Now Claimant's Name / ID.

D. Furthermore, any additional requests or reasons, as to why our request has been brought forth, are elaborated as follows: --

1) Reason One: The foundation of this request is expounded by simple facts of fundamental truths: --

a. Incorrect Information:

· Inaccurate aliases listed within the “ACRO Report” leads to confusion and potential legal or identity complications. Rectification or removal of such errors is imperative to ensure accuracy and integrity.

2) Reason Two: The basis for this appeal is underpinned by the following rationale: --

a. Legal, Identity, and Privacy Concerns:

· The Metropolitan Police Authority “MPA” is bound by duty to maintain precision across all ACRO Reports under their purview. Discrepancies become evident when examining the copy requested by the Claimant directly from the “MPA.” This situation undermines the mandatory data procedures that the police must rigorously adhere to. Ensuring accuracy serves both the police's responsibility for public peace and the foundational structure of the “MPA” for legal and administrative efficacy.

3) Reason Three: This plea finds its grounding in the following factual basis: --

a. Safeguarding Reputation and Fair Treatment:

· Retaining aliases that are not substantially linked to the Claimant potentially harm his reputation and unfairly prejudice any future interactions, be they professional or personal. Upholding fairness and unbiased representation are fundamental to a just society and accurate law enforcement practices.

· On account of these compelling justifications, we formally submit the following case numbers for deletion:

E. The Claimant Requests the Removal of the Following Aliases Under Alias 1:

Ø Aliases Alias 1 =

· Alias: Benjamin, Simon

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 04/03/97

a. Note: “Not in Work Out Code,” - Unable to locate information supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or outcome.

b. Also, the only reference point available is the last updated date regarding the alias and its associated cases. This lack of comprehensive information leads to confusion and makes it insufficient to maintain these records in the ACRO report due to mutable updates occurring on the same dates and cases that have been linked together, at courts.

Ø Alias 2

· Alias: Benjamin, Simon Paul

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 04/11/97

a. Note: “Not in Work Out Code,” - Unable to locate information supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or outcome, as the only reference point available is the last updated date regarding the alias and its associated cases. This lack of comprehensive information leads to confusion and makes it insufficient to maintain these records in the ACRO report due to mutable updates occurring on the same dates and cases that have been linked together, at courts.

b. Info: “Address “63.” 15/09/97 Acro 2021

c. Note: “Not in Work Out Code” Can’t Find Information Supporting the Arrest Date or Accused Offence or Outcome.

Ø Alias 3

· Alias: Cardell, Simon Paul

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 21/08/97

a. Note: “Not in Work Out Code,” - Unable to locate information supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or outcome as the only reference point available is the last updated date regarding the alias and its associated cases. This lack of comprehensive information leads to confusion and makes it insufficient to maintain these records in the ACRO report due to mutable updates occurring on the same dates and cases that have been linked together, at courts.

b. Info: “Address “66.” 20/08/97 Acro 2021

c. Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/736197h.

d. Charge: Using Threatening, Abusive, Insulting Words or Behavior W/I (With Intent) To Cause Fear or Provocation of Violence.

e. Outcome: “Cautioned” On 21/08/97 At 01 (Metropolitan Police) Fs/Ref: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Alias 4

· Alias: Codell, Simon Paul

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 27/06/13

b. Date Taken: 25/06/13.

c. Last Updated: 27/06/13 Acro 2021

d. Arrest/Summons Ref: 13/0000/00/625125u.

e. Outcome: “Won.”

Ø Alias 5

· Alias: Cordell, Simon

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 01/06/18 Acro 2021

a. Note: “Not in Work Out Code,” - Unable to locate information supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or outcome.

c. 18/01YD/01/4274X

d. Outcome: “Won.”

Ø Alias 6

· Alias: Cordell, Simon Benjamin

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 22/09/97 Acro 2021

b. Case Numb: 97/0000/00/823525e

c. Adjudication: Guilty Using Threatening, Abusive, Or Insulting Words or Behavior Likely to Cause Distress.

F. Alias Review Table

Alias Name	Last Updated	Issues Identified	Outcome/Request
Alias 1 (Benjamin, Simon)	04/03/97	No supporting arrest date, offense, or outcome. Inconsistent updates lead to confusion.	Request removal due to insufficient data.
Alias 2 (Benjamin, Simon Paul)	04/11/97	Missing arrest, offense, and outcome details. References outdated address ("63").	Request removal for clarity and lack of evidence.
Alias 3 (Cardell, Simon Paul)	21/08/97	Linked to address “66” and caution dated 21/08/97. Insufficient details on arrest ref. 97/0000/00/736197h.	Recommend removal due to incomplete data.
Alias 4 (Codell, Simon Paul)	27/06/13	Missing case details associated with ref. 13/0000/00/625125u. Case marked “Won,” due to NFA.	Request removal for outdated and inconsistent information.
Alias 5 (Cordell, Simon)	01/06/18	Case ref. 18/01YD/01/4274X marked “Won.” due to NFA.	Recommend removal for accuracy and redundancy.
Alias 6 (Cordell, Simon Benjamin)	22/09/97	Case ref. 97/0000/00/823525e shows adjudication as “Guilty.” Data remains unclear and incomplete.	Request removal for clarity and fairness in representation.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Alias Dates of Birth)

CASE (E5)

Nub 5

ITEMS

Alias Dates of Birth - Address

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. Subject: Request for Removal of Alias Dates of Birth and Address.

B. Introduction: I, the Claimant, formally request the removal of the "ALIAS DATES OF BIRTH" contained in the attached file. These alias dates of birth are listed in the ACRO Report and have been associated with my name. This request aligns with the previous requests made in "Part Nub 1" of this Official Document and is substantiated by compelling reasons detailed below.

C. Reasons for Removal:

1. Identity Confusion:

· The presence of inaccurate alias addresses can lead to identity confusion, potentially affecting innocent individuals.

2. Privacy Violation:

· The retention of unnecessary alias addresses by the police infringes upon my right to privacy and data protection.

3. Prejudice and Bias:

· The police's retention of irrelevant aliases and addresses has led to unfair profiling, reflecting bias on their part. This unjustified information could result in discriminatory labelling and unwarranted investigations. Moreover, these investigations have proven to be maliciously fraudulent and unproven, with no wrongdoing attributed to me, thereby serving no public interest.

4. Legal Implications:

· Incorrect alias addresses can lead to legal complications and unjust suspicion, causing unnecessary stress and damage to one's reputation.

5. Misuse of Information:

· Unrelated alias addresses may be misused for false accusations, leading to cases of harassment.

6. Data Security:

· The unnecessary retention of such data increases the risk of data breaches or leaks, potentially exposing sensitive information.

7. Resource Allocation:

· Law enforcement resources might be misallocated by pursuing leads based on irrelevant alias addresses, leading to a waste of valuable resources.

8. Civil Liberties:

· Unjustified retention of alias addresses could infringe on civil liberties.

9. Fair Due Process:

· Maintaining incorrect alias addresses compromises fair due process and can result in unjust interventions.

10. Transparency and Human Rights:

· Retaining irrelevant alias addresses lacks transparency in law enforcement practices and may violate human rights.

D. Specific Data for Deletion:

· I hereby request the removal of the following specific alias dates of birth and addresses from the ACRO Report:

E. Alias Dates of Birth:

· Alias Date of Birth 1: 21/01/81 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)

F. Addresses 2021 Acro Report:

1) Address 1: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 25/10/18, Status: “Won.”

2) Address 2: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 01/06/18, Status: “Won.”

3) Address 3: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 16/03/18, Status: “Won.”

4) Address 4: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 10/01/18, Status: “Won.”

5) Address 5: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 22/03/17, Status: “Won.”

6) Address 6: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 05/10/16, Status: “Won.”

7) Address 7: Bail Address 23 Byron Terrace London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 05/10/16, Status: “Won.”

8) Address 8: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 16/08/16, Status: “Won.”

9) Address 9: Bail Address 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 9/09/13, Status: “” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome. 13/0000/00/625125U

· NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION) 12. Disposal (NFA)

10) Address 10: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - - Date At: 07/04/13, Status: “Won.”

11) Address 11: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 25/01/13, Status: “Won.”

12) Address 12: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 08/11/12, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

13) Address 13: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 15/10/12, Status: “Won.”

14) Address 14: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9

· (Won) - Date At: 14/08/12 Status: “Won.”

15) Address 15: Home 23 Byron Terr Ace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

(Won) - Date At: 01/04/12, Status: "Won."

16) Address 16: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 05/09/11, Status: “” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome. 11/01YE/01/5200L

· NOT GUILTY 20. Disposal (Court).

17) Address 17: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 05/12/10, Status: “Won.”

18) Address 18: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 02/05/10, Status: “Won.”

19) Address 19: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - (Lost) - Date At: 14/10/09, Status: “The Same as Address 20” “Lost X1” & “Wonx2."

20) Address 20: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - (Lost) - Date At: 14/10/09 Status: “Lost X1” & “Wonx2,” 09/0000/00/929328d.

21) Address 21: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - (Lost) - Date At: 14/10/09 Status: “The Same as Address 20” “Lost X1” & “Wonx2."

22) Address 22: Home 23 Byron Terr Ace London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - (Lost) - Date At: 14/10/09 Status: “The Same as Address 20” “Lost X1” & “Wonx2."

23) Address 23: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - (Lost) - Date At: 14/10/09 Status: “The Same as Address 20” “Lost X1” & “Wonx2."

24) Address 24: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - (Lost) - Date At: 14/10/09 Status: “The Same as Address 20” “Lost X1” & “Wonx2."

25) Address 25: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 09/08/09, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

26) Address 26: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 08/08/09, Status: "Won."

27) Address 27: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 26/07/09, Status: “” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome. 09/23N3/01/1708M

· 20. Arrest, 30. Disposal (NFA) NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)

28) Address 28: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 19/02/09, Status: “Lost X1” 09/0000/00/174108m

29) Address 29: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 05/02/09, Status: "Won."

30) Address 30: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 02/01/09, Status: "Won."

31) Address 31: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 15/11/08, Status: “Lost X1” 08/01yt/01/4253k

32) Address 32: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Lost) - Date At: 28/07/08, Status: “” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome. 08/01YE/01/4408D

· 27. Arrest. 38. Disposal (Court) GUILTY THEFT

· PNC Printout 2012 Conviction 28 (Plea: Guilty} 25/07/08.

33) Address 33: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 18/03/08 Status: "Won."

34) Address 34: Home Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq

· (Won) - Date At: 22/12/07, Status: "Won."

35) Address 35: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 02/12/07, Status: "Won."

36) Address 36: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 24/11/07, Status: "Won."

37) Address 37: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 03/09/07, Status: "Won."

38) Address 38: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 17/03/07, Status: "Won."

39) Address 39: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 01/06/06, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

40) Address 40: Home 4 Crompton Place Enfield London En3 6xs

· (Won) - Date At: 05/05/06, Status: "Won."

41) Address 41: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 06/04/06 Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

· 06/04/06

42) Address 42: Alternative Address 4 Crompton Pl Ace Enfield Middlesex En3 6xs

· (Won) - Date At: 25/03/06 Status: "Won."

43) Address 43: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 25/03/06 Status: "Won."

44) Address 44: Not Known - Date At: 21/03/06,

· (Won) - Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

45) Address 45: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 01/02/06, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

46) Address 46: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 23/01/06, Status: “Lost X1” 06/0000/00/113215c

47) Address 47: Home 4 Crompton Place Enfield Middlesex

· (Won) - Date At: 31/12/04, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

48) Address 48: Home 4 Crompton Place Enfield Middlesex

· (Lost) - Date At: 02/04/03, Status: “Lost X1” 04/0000/00/1054471J

49) Address 49: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

(Lost) - Date At: 02/04/03 Status: “The Same as Address 48” “Lost X1” 04/0000/00/1054471J = “LOST” 21/08/03. Address 48 Was updated 10 days before or when this was update!

50) Address 50: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 08/05/02, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

51) Address 51: Bail Address the Old Barn Goffs Lane Goffs Oak Cheshunt

· (Won) - Date At: 18/08/00, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

52) Address 52: Home 4 Crompton Place Enfield Middlesex

· (Won) - Date At: 01/06/99, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

53) Address 53: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 19/05/99, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

54) Address 54: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 29/01/99, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

· The Acro Report 2012 states that on the 29/01/99 that I was released from prison on this date and was put on police supervision Supervisory

· Period Start Date: 29/01/99

· Supervisory Period End Date: 29/04/99

55) Address 55: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 19/11/98 Status: “Lost X1” 98/0000/00/989685m.

56) Address 56: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 13/11/98 Status: “The Same as Address 55” “Lost X1” 98/0000/00/989685M

57) Address 57: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton London Greater London N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 12/11/98 Status: “The Same as Address 55” “Lost X1” 98/0000/00/989685M

· Acro Report 2021 54. Arrest CHARGED ON 12/11/98 18:42 71. Disposal (Court)

· PNC 18/11/98 Enfield Juvenile, Imprisonment 5 MTh’s, Conviction 9, Driving Whilst Disqualified.

58) Address 58: Home Fairfax House 641 Green Lanes N8

· (Lost) - Date At: 09/04/98 Status: “Lost X1” Fairfax Children’s Home. 98/0000/00/388582P

59) Address 59: Home 641 Green Lanes Hornsey London N8

· (Lost)- Date At: 09/03/98, Status: “Lost X1” 98/0000/00/227669j

60) Address 60: Home Fairfax House 641 Green Lanes N8

· (Won) - Date At: 28/02/98, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

61) Address 61: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton N9 7dg

· (Lost) - Date At: 03/11/97, Status: “Lost X1” 97/0000/00/964137u

62) Address 62: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 15/09/97, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

63) Address 63: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 29/05/97, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

64) Address 64: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton N9 7dg

(Won) - Date At: 14/01/97, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

65) Address 65: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 01/01/94, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

66) Address 66: Home 23 Byron Terrace Ed Monton N9 7dg

· (Won) - Date At: 01/01/86, Status: “Not in Work Out Code” - No Information Available Supporting the Arrest Date, Accused Offense, Or Final Outcome.

· Not even for 01/01/16 or 01/01/96.

G. Lost Cases

Address

Address 28

Summons

09/0000/00/174108m

Possess A Controlled Drug – Class B – Cannabis resin.

Offence Date(s): 19/02/09

Location: ELSINGE Road En3 (01ye)

Disposal: 06/03/09

At: Enfield Magistrates Court

Ref: 09/2757/41947f

1 Fine £65.00 - Cn0900610376

2 Forfeiture and Destruction of Cannabis Resin

3 Costs £40.00

Address 31

Summons

08/01YT/01/4253K

Driving A Motor Vehicle with Excess Alcohol

Address 46

Summons

06/0000/00/113215c

The Bail Conditions Were!

Condition 1: ****

Condition 2: ****

Prosecuting Agent: None

Disposal: Penalty Notice Issued On 23/01/06 At 42 (Essex Police) Fs/

Ref: 42 (Essex Police)

Location: Market Square, Harlow, Essex (42dz)

Adjudication: Non-Conviction

Plea Description: No Plea Taken

NOT IN THE 2012 PNC COPY

Address 49

Summons

04/0000/00/1054471J

1 Use Disorderly Behaviour or Threatening/ Abusive/ Insulting

2 Words Likely to Cause Harassment Alarm or Distress

The Bail Conditions Were!

Condition 1: ****

Condition 2: ****

Disposal: 21/08/03

At: Enfield Magistrates Court

Ref: 04/2757/136593v

1 Conditional Discharge 24 MThs (Months)

IN THE 2012 PNC COPY

Address 55

Summons

98/0000/00/989685m

Address 56

Summons

Address 57

Summons

1) Driving Whilst Disqualified

2) Dangerous Driving

3) No Insurance

The Bail Conditions Were!

Condition 1: ****

Condition 2: ****

18/11/98

At: Enfield Juvenile Court

Ref: 98/2757/508187l

1 Imprisonment 5 MThs (Months)

IN THE 2012 PNC COPY

Address 58

Summons

98/0000/00/388582P

57+Arrest / 2021 Acro = 98/0000/00/388582P

Arrest/Summons Ref:	98/0000/00/388582P
Name Charged:	CORDELL, SIMON
Date of Birth:	26/01/81
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED 66 (NIS - NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SERVICE) 07/05/98
Process Stage:	CHARGED ON 09/04/98 16:13
Arresting Officer:	SCOTT/PC/196160/YR
Report Owner:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Prosecuting Agent:	CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) Last Updated: 22/10/98

Remand

Description:	REMANDED ON BAIL ON 09/04/98
At:	AT 01YR
To Appear at:	NEXT APPEARING ON 07/05/98
At:	AT HARINGEY JUVENILE
Owner:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Last Updated:	11/05/98
Condition 1:	TO LIVE AT FAIRFAX HOUSE, 641 GREEN LANES, LONDON N8

75+Disposal (Court) / 2021 Acro = 98/0000/00/388582P = Arrest 51

Adjudication Date:	18/06/98
Court Name:	HARINGEY JU VENILE
Name:	CORDELL, SIMON PAUL
Offence Count:	1
Taken into Consideration:	0
Owner:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Last Updated:	25/10/01

Offence

Arrest/Summons Ref:	98/0000/00/388582P
Crime Reference:	01YD/CN9155/98
Offence Number:	1
Court/Caution/Force Reference:	98/6742/200774F
Court Offence Number:	1
Adjudication:	GUILTY
Plea Description:	NOT KNOWN
Originator:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Offence Description:	BURGLARY AND THEFT - NON-DWELLING
Offence Date(s):	28/01/98
Disposal:	18/06/98 AT HARINGEY JUVENILE COURT REF: 98/6742/200774F 1 YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION 2 MTHS (MONTHS)

PNC

11.

18/06/98 Haringey Juvenile

1. Burglary and Theft - Non-Dwelling On 28/01/98 (Plea Not Known)

• Theft Act 1968 S.9(L)(B)

** Offence Committed on Bail **

Young Offenders Institution 2 MTh’s

When I was a teenager, I lived in Fairfax House, a children's home located at 641 Green Lanes, N8.

Fairfax House was more than just a residence; it was intended to be a home. There were only five children living there at any one time, which helped to create a close-knit and supportive environment. I had my own bedroom, and my key worker, Unize, was lovely and I treated her like a second mother, she guided and support me as I grow though my adolescence. Every week, I received pocket money from my legal guardians, which provided a small but meaningful sense of independence.

Like many teenagers, I found my own ways to explore life. I had a girlfriend, and, on some nights, I would sneak out of the house using the drainpipe to meet her. I would climb down the pipe to leave and climb back up when I returned. One evening, after I came back late, my guardians decided to punish me for doing such a thing and they punished me by refusing to give me my pocket money the following day. Feeling upset and misunderstood, I used the drainpipe to access the office, where I took only the pocket money that had always been meant for me.

When I returned home, however, I was greeted by the police. I was arrested, and what followed felt deeply unfair. Despite Fairfax House being my home, I was charged with burglary and theft. I was young, vulnerable, and lacked the support of my legal guardians during this process. I felt abandoned by the people who were supposed to advocate for me. Instead of being given the chance to explain my actions or have my situation understood, I was processed through the system like a statistic.

The legal system treated me not as a teenager struggling with emotions but as a criminal. I was found guilty of both charges and sent to juvenile prison. Losing Fairfax House meant losing the only place that had felt like a home, and I was left without the support system that every adolescent deserves. This conviction has remained on my record, marking me for an incident that I believe was handled unjustly. I don’t believe I could have burglarized my own home, and I feel the system failed to account for my circumstances and my vulnerability at the time.

Now, I want this conviction reviewed and deleted. I seek recognition of the unjust way in which the charges were applied and the impact it has had on my life.

Should I Have Been Charged with Burglary?

From a legal standpoint, burglary typically involves unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit theft or another crime. In my case, since Fairfax House was my home, it's highly debatable whether my actions should have met the threshold for burglary. The concept of "Unlawfully Entering" your own residence is complex, and legal arguments should have been raised against that charge.

It seems the system did not fairly account for the nuances of my situation, including my lack of legal support or advocacy at the time of being an adolescent.

However, the “Theft Charge” would have been based on the act of taking money from the office. Even though the money was intended for me, this situation could have been more compassionately handled, recognising the emotional distress I was under as an adolescent.

Can This Conviction Be Reviewed and Deleted?

Yes, there may be avenues for you to pursue a review and request the removal of this conviction. Here are the potential steps you can take:

1. Review Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA):

Depending on the details, your conviction may now be considered "spent" under the ROA, meaning it should no longer affect most aspects of your life.
Although spent convictions generally remain on your Police National Computer (PNC) record, they are excluded from most disclosure requests, such as employment background checks, unless you’re working in exempted fields.

2. Record Deletion Process (RDP):

If you believe the conviction was unjust or based on factors such as misapplication of charges or lack of proper legal support, you may apply to ACRO for the Record Deletion Process.
Grounds for requesting deletion could include:

a. Mistaken Identity: (arguing you did not "burgle" your own home).

b. No Crime: (highlighting the unique circumstances and lack of intent to commit burglary).

c. Proven Alibi/Insufficient Evidence: (if you have supporting evidence to challenge the conviction’s fairness).

3. Judicial Review:

· If you believe this conviction has infringed upon your rights, particularly given the vulnerability of your circumstances as a minor without sufficient guardianship support, you may explore a “Judicial Review.”

4. Human Rights or Miscarriage of Justice:

If you feel your treatment by the legal system violated your rights or resulted in a miscarriage of justice, you could consult a legal advocate specializing in such cases to seek redress.

5. Legal Advocacy:

Contacting a solicitor who specializes in criminal appeals, youth justice, or rehabilitation law could help you present your case comprehensively.

6. Removal from ACRO Report:

Even if the record cannot be fully expunged from the PNC, you may request its removal from an ACRO report to minimize its disclosure.

Address 59

Summons

98/0000/00/227669j

59. Arrest

98/0000/00/227669J

CHARGED ON 09/03/98 23:59

76. Disposal (Court)

COMMON ASSAULT

10/01/98 17:45 to 10/01/98 17:50

10/06/98 AT ENFIELD JUVENILE COURT REF: 98/6757/118791R

1 FINE £50.00

2 COMPENSATION £50.00

★

Page 25 OF 31

Page 5 Of 11

PNC

10.

10/06/98 Enfield Juvenile

1. Common Assault

On 10/01/98 (Plea: Not Known) Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.39

Fine 50.00 Compensation 50.00

★

Address 61

Summons

97/0000/00/964137u

62. Arrest

97/0000/00/964137U

Fingerprint Status: CONFIRMED 66 (NIS - NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION

CHARGED ON 01/09/97 21:18

79. Disposal (Court)

DRIVING WHILST DISQUALIFIED

GUILTY

Offence Date(s): 20/05/98

AT ENFIELD JUVENILE COURT REF: 97/6757/566952F

1 DISQUALIFICATION FROM DRIVING 3 YRS (YEARS)

Not in Work Out Code Cases

Address Number’s: 12. 25, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66.

Total: 18

#	Home Address	Date	Status	Notes
1.	Address: 12 Home: Home 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Middlesex En3 7jq	08/11/12	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
2.	Address: 25 Home: Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	09/08/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
3.	Address: 39 Home: 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	14/08/12	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
4.	Address: 41 Home: Flat 109, Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	05/09/11	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
5.	Address: 44 Home: 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	26/07/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
6.	Address: 45 Home: 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	28/07/08	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
7.	Address: 47 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	16/08/16	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
8.	Address: 50 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	07/04/13	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
9.	Address: 51 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	09/09/13	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
10.	Address: 52 Home: 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	14/10/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
11.	Address: 53 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	22/03/17	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
12.	Address: 54 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	28/07/08	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
13.	Address: 60 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	05/10/16	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
14.	Address: 62 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	09/08/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
15.	Address: 63 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	08/08/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
16.	Address: 64 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	26/07/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
17.	Address: 65 Home: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	05/02/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.
18.	Address: 66 Home: 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	02/01/09	Not in Work Out Code	No information available supporting the arrest date, accused offense, or final outcome.

· In the “2017 ACRO Report,” there are “77 Addresses” associated with my name. However, I have been arrested far more times than the number of records suggests. “When Totalled, My Arrests Exceed 100 Incidents,” and I have successfully won every case except for the ones explicitly listed.

· The existence of this extensive criminal record has subjected me to persistent and unwarranted police attention, creating an environment of harassment. This ongoing scrutiny often escalates to situations where I feel compelled to act in self-defence against the police due to the undue stress and injustice caused by this record. As a result, I am frequently arrested on unfair grounds, which leads to verbal altercations. These verbal exchanges are then used as the sole basis for charges against me.

· Given these circumstances, I formally request the deletion of all offences related to breach of the peace or charges stemming from threatening words and behaviour. These charges not only stem from the undue harassment I experience but also fail to reflect the systemic issues that have contributed to my treatment by the authorities.

· Won Cases

a. Address Number’s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43.

b. Total: 35

c. Total: 18 + 35 = 48.

d. Out of 8 Conviction there is non-convictions involved as well as mis minor juvenile offences and driving offences and/or breach of the peace.

Number	Address Home		Date	Status	Notes
1	Address: 1	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	25/10/18	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
2	Address: 2	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	01/06/18	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
3	Address: 3	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	16/03/18	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
4	Address: 4	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	10/01/18	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
5	Address: 5	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	22/03/17	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
6	Address: 6	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	05/10/16	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
7	Address: 7	23 Byron Terrace, London, N9 7DG	05/10/16	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
8	Address: 8	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	16/08/16	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
9	Address: 9	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	07/04/13	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
10	Address: 10	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	25/01/13	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
11	Address: 11	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	15/10/12	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
13	Address: 13	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	14/08/12	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
14	Address: 14	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	01/04/12	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
15	Address: 15	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	05/12/10	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
16	Address: 16	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	02/05/10	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
17	Address: 17	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	14/10/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
18	Address: 18	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	08/08/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
19	Address: 19	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	05/08/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
20	Address: 20	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	26/07/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
21	Address: 21	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	25/06/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
22	Address: 22	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	09/04/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
23	Address: 23	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	01/02/09	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
24	Address: 24	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	28/07/08	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
26	Address: 26	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	14/08/07	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
27	Address: 27	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	01/01/07	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
29	Address: 29	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	16/11/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
30	Address: 30	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	10/10/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
33	Address: 33	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	23/08/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
34	Address: 34	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	11/07/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
35	Address: 35	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	09/06/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
36	Address: 36	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	01/05/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
37	Address: 37	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	25/04/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
40	Address: 40	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	12/03/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
42	Address: 42	109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ	05/01/06	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.
43	Address: 43	23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London, N9 7DG	16/12/05	Won	No further information available to support the outcome.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Warning Signals)

CASE (F6)

Nub 6

ITEMS

Warning Signals

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant respectfully requests a comprehensive review of the "WARNING SIGNALS" documented in the attached ACRO Report under his name. These warning signals should be evaluated with the same diligence as outlined in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document." Additionally, the Claimant provides substantial reasons for the consideration of these warning signals:

B. Reason One: For the removal of the specified "WARNING SIGNALS" from the ACRO Report based on the following compelling grounds:

1. Warning Signal 1

· Warning: Ailment

· Warning Date: 03/11/09

· Text: Crohn's Disease

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 23/11/14

Ø Relevant Case Details:

§ 03/11/09 At South-East Hampshire Magistrates Court

§ Ref: 09/1782/-155908t1

§ Conditional Discharge 6 Months (Months)

§ 2 Costs £85.00

§ "Won" - 03/11/09 At Southeast Hampshire Magistrates Court

§ Ref: 09/1782/155908t1 Withdrawn Final

2. Warning Signal 2

· Warning: Suicidal

· Warning Date: 09/05/98

· Text: Attempts Self Harm

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 25/05/20

Ø While No Supporting Arrest Date or Accused Offence Available, It Is Vital to Consider the Passage of Time and Rehabilitation as Factors for Removal.

3. Warning Signal 3

· Warning: Self-Harm

· Warning Date: 03/11/09

· Text: Banging Head Against Cell Wall and Floor

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 23/11/14

Ø Relevant Case Details:

§ 03/11/09 At South-East Hampshire Magistrates Court

§ Ref: 09/1782/-155908t1

§ Conditional Discharge 6 Months (Months)

§ 2 Costs £85.00

§ "Won" - 03/11/09 At Southeast Hampshire Magistrates Court

§ Ref: 09/1782/155908t1 Withdrawn Final

4. Warning Signal 4

· Warning: Drugs

· Warning Date: 06/03/09

· Text: Possession of Cannabis

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 09/04/12

C. Relevant Case Details:

Date and Court: 06/03/09, Enfield Magistrates Court
Ref: 09/2757/41947f
Details:

Fine: £65.00 (Ref: CN0900610376)
Forfeiture and Destruction of Cannabis Resin
Court Costs: £40.00

D. Arrest Record Linked to Warning:

Arrest Date: 19/02/09 at 17:00
Disposal (Court): Ref 09/0000/00/174108M
Offence Date(s): 19/02/09
Details:

Fine and costs imposed on 06/03/09 at Enfield Magistrates Court.

E. Circumstances of the Case:

· On 19/02/09, I was stopped by police on my housing estate, during which the officer claimed I had swallowed something suspicious and proceeded to arrest me. However, no physical evidence or substance was retrieved to support their allegation. The police accused me of concealing a Class A drug, such as heroin, and stated they had the authority to prosecute for a more serious offence if I did not cooperate.

· Under pressure and feeling forced, I stated that the substance in question was cannabis. This admission led to my being charged at the police station and subsequently found guilty in court. The court imposed a fine, costs, and an order for forfeiture and destruction of cannabis resin. However, “No Cannabis Resin Was Ever Retrieved Or Destroyed,” as there was no substance recovered or proven to exist.

· Also “Warning Signal 4” was updated in 2012, when it should have been done in 2009 and due to what is proved in the following sections “POLICE MARKERS: -- (Identity Numbers,)” within this official document in regard to “Last Updated Dates,” I request the following:

F. Request for Removal:

· Given the context and lack of evidence in this case, I formally request the removal of Warning Signal 4 and all associated records from the Police National Computer (PNC) and related systems. This request is based on the following grounds:

1. Lack of Physical Evidence:

· No substance was ever retrieved or proven to exist. The warning and charges were based solely on an unsubstantiated assumption by the police.

2. Coercion and Pressure:

· I felt compelled to admit to cannabis possession to avoid a more severe charge, despite the absence of any recovered substance.

3. Inaccuracy in Records:

· The warning text and court records refer to forfeiture and destruction of cannabis resin, which did not occur, further highlighting the inaccuracy of these records.

4. Undue Prejudice:

· The existence of this warning on my record leads to ongoing undue scrutiny and harassment, negatively affecting my rehabilitation and opportunities.

5. Alignment with Legal Rights Under GDPR:

· Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act, I have the right to request the removal of data that is inaccurate, irrelevant, or processed unlawfully. This warning meets these criteria, as it is based on an unproven allegation.

G. Action Requested:

Deletion of Warning Signal 4 and Related Records:

Remove Warning Signal 4, its associated case details, and any affiliated documentation from all national and local systems, including the PNC and local police databases.

Amendment of Records:

Correct inaccuracies in any retained records to reflect the lack of evidence and the factual events of the case.

Confirmation of Action Taken:

Provide a formal acknowledgment of this request and notify me of the actions taken, including confirmation of data deletion and corrections made.

H. Conclusion:

The presence of this warning and associated records causes undue harm and perpetuates a stigma based on an incident where no evidence was found to substantiate the claims against me. I respectfully request a thorough review and resolution in accordance with applicable data protection and justice principles and the Claimant earnestly seeks the removal of these "WARNING SIGNALS" from the ACRO Report. These signals, while pertinent in the past, no longer accurately represent the Claimant's current circumstances and commitment to rehabilitation. Their removal would be in line with the principles of fairness, justice, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Warning Signals)

CASE (G7)

Nub 7

ITEMS

Information Markers

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant respectfully requests a thorough review of the "INFORMATION MARKERS" documented in the attached ACRO Report under his name. These markers should be evaluated with the same attention to detail as outlined in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document." Furthermore, the Claimant provides additional details and a compelling reason for the consideration of these markers.

B. Reason One: For the removal of the specified "INFORMATION MARKERS" from the ACRO Report, based on the following rationale:

1. Information Marker 1

· Marker: DNA E+W Not Required

· Marker Date: 18/06/21

· Text: DNA Profile Held on NDNAD For E+W

2. Information Marker 2

· Marker: Fails to Appear

· Marker Date: 27/10/09

· Text: Failed to Appear at Isle of Wight Mags on 27/10/09

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 29/10/09

3. Information Marker 3

· Marker: Breaches Bail Conditions

· Marker Date: 20/11/13

· Text: Namely Not to Enter the Southwark Borough

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 21/11/13

C. Information Markers Findings

Marker Number	Case Description	Relevant Details
Marker 1	This case was won by the Defendant, Mr. Simon Paul Cordell.	No further information available to support the outcome.
Marker 2	Marker relates to failing to appear at Isle of Wight Court. The case was overturned and is marked in error.	Arrest/Summons Ref: 09/0000/00/528079N 15. Disposal (Court): Does not contain a guilty conviction for this offence as required.
Marker 3	Gazebo Case	Arrest/Summons Ref: 13/0000/00/625125U Disposal (Court): Adjudication: NOT GUILTY.

I. Conclusion:

The Claimant respectfully seeks the removal of these "INFORMATION MARKERS" from the ACRO Report. The request is motivated by the understanding that these markers no longer accurately reflect the Claimant's circumstances and, in the interest of fairness and justice, should be reconsidered. Furthermore, the Claimant emphasizes his commitment to adhering to legal obligations and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, reinforcing the case for the removal of these markers.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Marks and Scars)

CASE (H8)

Nub 8

ITEMS

Marks and Scars

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant respectfully requests that the information regarding his "MARKS AND SCARS," as contained within the attached ACRO Report bearing his name, be reviewed, and considered with the same diligence as previously outlined in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document." This request is supplemented by specific details and reasoning as follows:

B. Reason One: For the removal of the "MARKS AND SCARS" entries from the ACRO Report, taking into account the following information:

1. Mark / Scar 1

· Type: Pierced

· Location: Left

· Detail: Ears

· Text: Small Yel-Met Hoop

2. Mark / Scar 2

· Type: Pierced

· Location: Left

· Detail: Ears

3. Mark / Scar 3

· Type: Lacking

· Location: Upper

· Detail: Teeth

4. Mark / Scar 4

· Type: Scarred

· Location: Left

· Detail: Hand

· Text: 1 Inch Scar on Hand by Wrist

· Keyword(S): Cut

5. Mark / Scar 5

· Type: Scarred

· Location: Right

· Detail: Hand

· Text: On First Knuckle - Right Forefinger

· Keyword(S): Cut

6. Mark / Scar 6

· Type: Mark

· Location: Right

· Detail: Abdomen

· Keyword(S): Birth

7. Mark / Scar 7

· Type: Mark

· Detail: Abdomen

· Text: Birthmark on Stomach

· Keyword(S): Birth

8. Mark / Scar 8

· Type: Mark

· Location: Left

· Detail: Abdomen

· Keyword(S): Birth

9. Mark / Scar 9

· Type: Scarred

· Location: Left

· Detail: Legs

· Text: 2" Scar Above Knee

· Keyword(S): Cut

10. Mark / Scar 10

· Type: Scarred

· Location: Left

· Detail: Legs

· Text: Scar Across Left Knee

· Keyword(S): Cut

C. Marks and Scars Findings Table:

Mark/Scar Number	Type	Location	Detail	Reason for Removal
1	Pierced	Left	Ears - Small Yellow Metal Hoop	Entry lacks relevance and significance for identification purposes; outdated detail from prior decades.
2	Pierced	Left	Ears	Redundant and vague entry, offering no useful or distinguishing information.
3	Lacking	Upper	Teeth	Unclear or unverifiable description; adds no value to identification or records.
4	Scarred	Left Hand	1-Inch Scar on Hand by Wrist (Cut)	Minor and indistinct scar; time elapsed and scar reduced its visibility and relevance for identification.
5	Scarred	Right Hand	On First Knuckle - Right Forefinger	Small, non-distinctive marking; outdated and unnecessary for identification purposes.
6	Mark	Right Abdomen	Birthmark (Keyword: Birth)	Non-specific and unverifiable, with no current relevance for identification.
7	Mark	Abdomen	Birthmark on Stomach (Keyword: Birth)	Redundant with entry #6, making it a duplicate and irrelevant for accurate records.
8	Mark	Left Abdomen	Birthmark (Keyword: Birth)	Redundant, vague, and offers no information.
9	Scarred	Left Leg	2" Scar Above Knee (Cut)	Generic and outdated, contributing nothing unique to identification accuracy.
10	Scarred	Left Leg	Scar Across Left Knee (Cut)	Lacks specificity or distinguishing features; as time has diminished its visibility.

D. Request Summary:

a. Basis for Removal:

· These marks and scars are outdated, redundant, or offer no substantial value for identification purposes. Their continued inclusion causes unnecessary prejudice and is inconsistent with principles of fairness and relevance.

b. Inability to Identify with Lost Cases:

· None of these descriptions provide sufficient identifying characteristics to justify their retention or connection to lost cases, underscoring their irrelevance and the need for deletion.

a. Legal Framework:

· This request aligns with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the Claimant's commitment to rehabilitation, ensuring records reflect only pertinent, accurate, and lawful information.

E. Conclusion:

The Claimant seeks the removal of these "MARKS AND SCARS" entries from the ACRO Report, considering their nature and the time elapsed since these markings and scars were recorded. These removals are requested in alignment with the principles of fairness and relevance, acknowledging the Claimant's commitment to rehabilitation and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Photograph Locations)

CASE (I9)

Nub 9

ITEMS

Photograph Locations

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

· The Claimant requests that of the "PHOTOGRAPH LOCATIONS" contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same "Grossly-Term-Refs" as the requests prior made in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document" but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows:

A. Reason One:

· For the removal of the following photograph locations due to the successful resolution of associated cases, in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and considering the time spent:

· Photograph 1 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 25/10/18.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 18/01yd/01/8306e.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 25/10/18

§ "Won."

· Photograph 2 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 15/03/18.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 18/01yd/01/1984h.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 16/03/18

§ "Won."

· Photograph 3 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 05/10/16.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 16/01ye/01/3890g.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 05/10/16

§ "Won."

· Photograph 4 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 25/06/13.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 13/0000/00/625125u.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 27/06/13

§ "Won."

· Photograph 5 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 07/04/13.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 13/01ht/01/1537c.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 07/04/13

§ "Won."

· Photograph 6 (Location: 20 - West Midlands Police):

· Date Taken: 15/08/12.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 12/20dc/02/3727d.

· Owner: 20 (West Midlands Police)

· Last Updated: 15/08/12

§ "Won."

· Photograph 7 (Location: 41 - Hertfordshire Constabulary):

· Date Taken: 13/08/12.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 12/41hq/01/20685j.

· Owner: 41 (Hertfordshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 14/08/12

§ "Won."

· Photograph 8 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 05/12/10.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 10/01ye/01/7294n.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 05/12/10

§ "Won."

· Photograph 9 (Location: 01 - Metropolitan Police):

· Date Taken: 02/05/10.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 10/01gn/01/2357x.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 02/05/10

§ "Won."

· Photograph 10 (Location: 44 - Hampshire Constabulary):

· Date Taken: 14/10/09.

· Arrest/Summons Ref.: 09/0000/00/929328d.

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 14/10/09

a. (Hampshire Constabulary) Theft – Shoplifting

b. Failing To Surrender to Custody at Appointed Time

c. Failing To Surrender to Custody as Soon as Practicable After Appointed Time

§ “Lost” 03/11/09 At South-East Hampshire Magistrates Court Ref: 09/1782/-155908t1 Conditional Discharge 6 Months (Months) 2 Costs £85.00

§ "Won." 03/11/09 At Southeast Hampshire Magistrates Court Ref: 09/1782/155908t1 Withdrawn Final

B. Photographs and Associated Case Details:

Photograph Number	Location	Date Taken	Arrest/Summons Ref.	Owner	Last Updated	Case Outcome	Reason for Removal
1	01 - Metropolitan Police	25/10/18	18/01yd/01/8306e	01 (Metropolitan Police)	25/10/18	Won	Case successfully resolved; retention of photograph is unnecessary and inconsistent with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
2	01 - Metropolitan Police	15/03/18	18/01yd/01/1984h	01 (Metropolitan Police)	16/03/18	Won	Case successfully resolved; photograph no longer serves a valid purpose and should be removed.
3	01 - Metropolitan Police	05/10/16	16/01ye/01/3890g	01 (Metropolitan Police)	05/10/16	Won	Photograph retention unjustified given the successful resolution of the case and elapsed time.
4	01 - Metropolitan Police	25/06/13	13/0000/00/625125u	01 (Metropolitan Police)	27/06/13	Won	Case resolved; continued retention of this photograph is inconsistent with principles of fairness and relevance.
5	01 - Metropolitan Police	07/04/13	13/01ht/01/1537c	01 (Metropolitan Police)	07/04/13	Won	Photograph is no longer necessary or relevant due to the successful case outcome.
6	20 - West Midlands Police	15/08/12	12/20dc/02/3727d	20 (West Midlands Police)	15/08/12	Won	Photograph retention is outdated; case successfully resolved.
7	41 - Hertfordshire Constabulary	13/08/12	12/41hq/01/20685j	41 (Hertfordshire Constabulary)	14/08/12	Won	Case resolved; photograph retention is unnecessary and should be removed.
8	01 - Metropolitan Police	05/12/10	10/01ye/01/7294n	01 (Metropolitan Police)	05/12/10	Won	Retention of photograph is irrelevant due to the successful case outcome and time elapsed since the incident.
9	01 - Metropolitan Police	02/05/10	10/01gn/01/2357x	01 (Metropolitan Police)	02/05/10	Won	Case resolved successfully; photograph is outdated and irrelevant.
10	44 - Hampshire Constabulary	14/10/09	09/0000/00/929328d	44 (Hampshire Constabulary)	14/10/09	Mixed: 1 Lost, 2 Won	Retention of this photograph is unnecessary given that the majority of associated cases were won, and the details are outdated and irrelevant for retention.

C. Request Summary:

a. Basis for Removal:

· All listed photographs pertain to cases that have been successfully resolved (either won or no longer relevant) and do not serve any lawful purpose for retention.

· Continued storage of these photographs violates the principles of the “Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974” and does not align with the principles of fairness and rehabilitation.

b. Legal Framework:

· The request aligns with the “Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974,” ensuring records are relevant and appropriate for the Claimant's rights to privacy and rehabilitation.

D. Conclusion:

The Claimant requests the removal of these photograph locations based on the successful resolution of associated cases, taking into consideration the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the time elapsed since these cases were won is requested.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Identity Numbers)

CASE (J10)

Nub 10

ITEMS

Identity Numbers

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the "IDENTITY NUMBERS" contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same "Grossly-Term-Refs" as the requests prior made in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document" but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows:

B. Reason One: For the removal of the following identity numbers due to lawful reasons:

• Identity Number 1 (DNA BARCODE):

Type: DNA Barcode
Number: 90437213
Owner: 02 (Metropolitan Police)
Last Updated: 13/02/01

• Identity Number 2 (BTP Crime System Id):

· Type: BTP Crime System Id

· Number: 9123w0276x

· Owner: 93 (British Transport Police)

· Last Updated: 19/02/13

• Identity Number 3 (UK Citizen Card):

Type: UK Citizen Card
Number: 1221612151526473
Owner: 89 (ACPO Criminal Records Office)
Last Updated: 15/05/17

• Identity Number 4 (UK Passport):

Type: UK Passport
Number: 801695219
Owner: 89 (ACPO Criminal Records Office)
Last Updated: 15/05/17

E. Findings:

1. Identity Number 1 (DNA BARCODE):

Use the Weblinks to Check!

01-PNC 2012-and-2014-Printouts

02-ACRO-Printouts

§ Last Updated: “13/02/01”

• Identity Number 1 (DNA BARCODE):

Type: DNA Barcode
Number: 90437213
Owner: 02 (Metropolitan Police)
Last Updated: 13/02/01

Identity Number 1 (DNA BARCODE): The section labelled “Number: 90437213” is linked to the “Last Updated” date of “13/02/01.”

When the 13/02/01 is searched for in the “ACRO Report 2021,” the search directs us to the case recorded and listed as below:

Ø Extra Info Added from Acro Report.

1) Disposal (Court) / 2021 Acro = 99/0000/00/960881c

· Guilty

· Offence Description 1: Driving Whilst Disqualified

· Plea Description: Guilty

· Driving Licence Endorsed

· Offence Description 2: Theft from Vehicle

· Plea Description: Not Guilty but Found Guilty

· Curfew Order 3 Months (Months) At 23 Byron Terrace, Hertford Rd, London, N9 7dg. 8am-8pm, Mon-Sun (Inc)

· Acro 2021: 52. Arrest

· CHARGED ON 26/10/99 23:59

· Acro 2021: 68. Disposal (Court)

· Offence Date(s): 22/10/99 13:25

· PNC Printout 2012: Conviction 18, 22/10/99 (Plea: Guilty).

· Last Updated: 13/02/01

This case has the same Last Update, date, indicating potentially fraudulent activity in how the files were handled and with the reason Notably, being the “Offence Date” in the “Acro Report” coincides with the “Plea Date,” in the “PNC Printout” and this raising questions about the integrity of the documentation.

Additionally, the “Last Updated” date aligns with the “Offence Date,” as the PNC printout indicates that the sentencing took place on 07/07/00 at the Enfield Magistrates Court and for a three-month curfew order to start as this is what the Judge is said to have issued, extending the timeline due to the curfew until 07/10/2000. This means the case was updated five months later, which is unusually prolonged for something of such importance but could be considered part of the administrative process, bring us to the date of the “Last Update” date of the “13/02/01!”

“Identity Number 1 (DNA BARCODE),” it becomes evident that the “DNA Sample” was taken in connection with a accused case to do with theft from a car and with the (Arrest/Summons Ref: 99/0000/00/960881c), as indicated by “Entry Dates,” and its correspondence. However, this sample was not formally included in the “Theft from A Car” arrest or disposable, Acro case files and only appears in the “DNA Section” of the “ACRO Report.” which is what we can see.

Were this DNA Sample starts to take a turn to being illegally used and to create my Acro Record in Fraud is proved by the “Last Update” dates of entry and is demonstrated in the following section.

“DNA Report Summary,” Acro Report 2021 states DNA Sample Number: 90437213 was entered on the 13/02/01 and this number is attached to the below following case file contained in the “Acro Report 2021!”

Acro DNA Report 2

Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/193878F

Sample Barcode: 90437213

Date of Sample: 28/02/97

77. Disposal (Court)

Adjudication: GUILTY

Offence Date(s): 17/01/97 21:30

Offence Description: ROBBERY “Pizza”

Last Updated: 13/02/01

· This is supposed to be the first ever offence recorded in the Mr. Simon Cordell’s Name by the police and Co. in the PNC Printout and the Acro Reports.

· The " Offence Date " date predates the first reprimand warning of the 21/08/97, creating concerns about the integrity and validity of the record handling. This suggests procedural errors and fraudulent activity.

· This offence is totally fabricated and never happened.

· It states a pizza was stolen.

a. DNA Number: 90437213 from above has a Last Updated: date of the 13/02/01 IT A DNA SAMPLE UPDATED IN 2001 and Must Never Be Backdated to 1997 a s this is 4 years later and a total of 1,447 days.

To calculate the number of days from 28/02/1997 to 13/02/2001, including both dates:

1. From 28/02/1997 to 28/02/1998: 1 year (non-leap year) = 365 days.

2. From 28/02/1998 to 28/02/1999: 1 year (1998 is not a leap year) = 365 days.

3. From 28/02/1999 to 28/02/2000: 1 year (2000 is a leap year) = 366 days.

4. From 28/02/2000 to 13/02/2001: This includes the remainder of 2000 and the start of 2001:

o From 28/02/2000 to 31/12/2000 = 307 days.

o From 01/01/2001 to 13/02/2001 = 44 days.

Total Days: 365 + 365 + 366 + 307 + 44 = 1,447 days (including both start and end dates).

All police case that are convicted as guilty at court are bound as sealed after Conviction and initial upload. The memorandum of convictions and cases are sealed by law and must not be edited or amended.

Sealing of Police Cases and Convictions:

All police cases resulting in guilty convictions at court are legally bound as sealed once uploaded to the relevant system. These records must not be edited or amended under any circumstances. The sealing of such cases and convictions is governed by the following legal principles and frameworks:

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (UK):

This act outlines the conditions under which criminal convictions may become "spent" after a certain period and prohibits the disclosure of such convictions in most contexts. Sealed records are protected under this act to prevent undue prejudice or misuse.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018:

Under GDPR, the accuracy, security, and proper handling of personal data are mandatory. Criminal conviction records are classified as sensitive data, requiring strict adherence to storage and processing rules, ensuring they remain sealed and unaltered after being uploaded.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE):

This act provides the legal framework for the handling of evidence and records, including provisions to secure and seal case files once uploaded, ensuring their integrity and preventing unauthorized access or modification.

Criminal Records (Rehabilitation and Disposal) Regulations:

· These regulations govern the proper handling, sealing, and disposal of criminal records, including rules on limiting access to authorized parties and safeguarding the records from alteration post-upload.

Purpose of Sealed Memorandum:

The memorandum of convictions and cases is legally sealed to:

Ensure Integrity: Protect the accuracy and finality of court decisions.
Prevent tampering: Safeguard records from unauthorized edits or amendments.
Uphold Rehabilitation Rights: Support the reintegration of individuals by preventing the misuse of sealed records.
Comply With Legal Obligations: Fulfill statutory requirements under the above-mentioned laws and regulations.

Sealed records serve as definitive proof of judicial outcomes while ensuring the rights and privacy of individuals under these frameworks.

b. The case Number: 90437213 should not be linked to this file and that is obvious and proves fraud.

Acro 2021: 68. Arrest

Acro 2021: 77. Disposal (Court)

2. Identity Number 2 (BTP Crime System Id):

· “Not in Workout Codes!”

3. Identity Number 3 (Uk Citizen Card):

· Used As Id While on Bail for A Case “Won.”

4. Identity Number 4 (Uk Passport):

· Used As Id While on Bail for A Case “Won.”

F. Conclusion:

The Claimant seeks the removal of these identity numbers from the ACRO Report for lawful reasons, including instances where these identity documents were used while on bail for cases that were subsequently won, rendering their inclusion unnecessary.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Passports)

CASE (K11)

Nub 11

ITEMS

Passports

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the "PASSPORTS" contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same "Grossly-Term-Refs" as the requests prior made in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document" but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows:

B. Reason One:

· The information the police hold that contains the Now Claimant's "PASSPORT" was only required by the police due to bail conditions that they wrongly imposed against him as a result of a case they brought against him and subsequently lost at Court.

· I did not lose any cases in 2017, which is reflected in the Last Updated date of this case: May 15, 2017. This confirms that I proved my innocence and "Won."

Ø Passport 1:

Passport Number: 801695219
Issue Date: 27/04/11.
Issuing Office: Ips
Country: United Kingdom
Expiry Date: 27/04/21
Owner: 89 (ACPO Criminal Records Office)
Last Updated: 15/05/17

C. The Claimant seeks the removal of this passport record from the ACRO Report due to its association with bail conditions that were wrongly imposed and subsequently dropped after the police lost the related court case. This information is no longer relevant and should not be part of the Claimant's record.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Occupations)

CASE (L12)

Nub 12

ITEMS

Occupations

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the "OCCUPATIONS" contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same "Grossly-Term-Refs" as the requests prior made in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document" but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows:

a. Reason One: For the requested "Occupations" data, the Claimant has provided the following occupations, each with unique dates and owners:

1) Occupation 1:

· Occupation: Entertainer

· Date: 25/10/18

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 25/10/18

§ Additional Note:

a) 2. Arrest

b) Arrest/Summons Ref: 18/01YD/01/8306E

c) 5. Disposal (NFA) & 6. Disposal (NFA).

2) Occupation 2:

· Occupation: Self Employed

· Date: 09/01/18

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 10/01/18

§ Additional Note:

a) a

3) Occupation 3:

· Occupation: Unemployed

· Date: 04/10/16

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 05/10/16

§ Additional Note:

a) a

4) Occupation 4:

· Occupation: Entertainer

· Date: 14/08/16

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 16/08/16

§ Additional Note:

a) a

5) Occupation 5:

· Occupation: Voluntary Worker

· Date: 07/04/13

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 07/04/13

§ Additional Note:

a) a

6) Occupation 6:

· Occupation: Entertainer

· Date: 25/01/13

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 25/01/13

§ Additional Note:

a) a

7) Occupation 7:

· Occupation: Voluntary Worker

· Description: Western, Typical UK.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

§ Additional Note:

a) a

8) Occupation 8:

· Occupation: Director

· Date: 14/08/12

· Owner: 20 (West Midlands Police)

· Last Updated: 15/08/12

§ Additional Note:

a) 13. Arrest

b) 12/20DC/02/3727D

c) 20. Disposal (Court)

d) NOT GUILTY

9) Occupation 9:

· Occupation: Entertainer

· Date: 01/01/12

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 25/01/13

§ Additional Note:

a) "Not in Work Out Code." No Supporting Information Regarding the Arrest Date, Accused Offence, Or Final Outcome.

10) Occupation 10:

· Occupation: Manager

· Date: 04/09/11

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 05/09/11

§ Additional Note:

a) 15. Arrest

b) 11/01YE/01/5200L

c) 20. Disposal (Court)

d) NOT GUILTY

11) Occupation 11:

· Occupation: Self Employed

· Date: 02/05/10

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 02/05/10

§ Additional Note:

a) 17. Arrest

b) 09/0000/00/929328D

c) 27. Disposal (Court)

d) GUILTY

e) THEFT - SHOPLIFTING

12) Occupation 12:

· Occupation: Catering Manager

· Date: 07/08/09

· Owner: 22 (West Mercia Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 08/08/09

§ Additional Note:

a) 19. Arrest

b) 09/22EA/01/155U

c) 31. Disposal (NFA)

d) NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)

13) Occupation 13:

· Occupation: Catering Wholesaler

· Date: 26/07/09

· Owner: 23 (Warwickshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 26/07/09

§ Additional Note:

a) "Not in Work Out Code." No Supporting Information Regarding the Arrest Date, Accused Offence, Or Final Outcome.

b) 20. Arrest

c) 09/23N3/01/1708M

d) 30. Disposal (NFA)

e) NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)

14) Occupation 14:

· Occupation: Fast Food Employee

· Date: 12/06/09

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 16/11/09

§ Additional Note:

a) 21. Arrest

b) 09/0000/00/528079N

c) 25. Disposal (Court)

d) POSSESS KETAMINE

15) Occupation 15:

· Occupation: Fast Food Employee

· Date: 12/06/09

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 22/10/09

§ Additional Note:

a) 21. Arrest

b) 09/0000/00/530252A

c) 26. Disposal (NFA)

d) NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)

§ Above Goes with Next, Date: 12/06/09

16) Occupation 16:

· Occupation: Fast Food Employee

· Date: 12/06/09

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 21/10/09

§ Above Goes with Next, Date: 12/06/09

17) Occupation 17:

· Occupation: Unemployed

· Date: 12/06/09

· Owner: 44 (Hampshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 16/06/09

18) Occupation 18:

· Occupation: Unemployed

· Date: 19/02/09

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 20/02/09

§ Accused Offence: Possess A Controlled Drug – Class B – Cannabis Resin

§ Final Outcome: “Lost” On 06/03/09 At Enfield Magistrates Court.

§ Additional Note:

a) Penalty: 1 Fine £65.00 (Cn0900610376)

b) 2 Forfeiture and Destruction of Cannabis Resin

c) Costs £40.00

d) 36. Disposal (Court)

e) 09/0000/00/174108M

f) POSSESS A CONTROLLED DRUG - CLASS B - CANNABIS RESIN

g) Offence Date(s): 19/02/09

h) PNC Printout 2012

i) On 19/02/09 (Plea: Guilty)

19) Occupation 19:

§ Occupation: Car Salesman

§ Date: 05/02/09

§ Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

§ Last Updated: 05/02/09

§ Additional Note:

a) 24. Arrest

b) 09/01YF/01/152B

c) 29. Disposal (Court)

d) NOT GUILTY

20) Occupation 20:

§ Occupation: Self Employed

§ Date: 05/05/06

§ Owner: 41 (Hertfordshire Constabulary)

§ Last Updated: 06/05/06

§ Additional Note:

a) 38. Arrest

b) 06/41HQ/01/15207L

c) 57. Disposal (NFA)

d) NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)

21) Occupation 21:

§ Occupation: Unemployed

§ Date: 25/03/06

§ Owner: 42 (Essex Police)

§ Last Updated: 28/03/06

§ Additional Note:

a) 39. Arrest

b) 06/0000/00/397207P

c) 55. Disposal (NFA)

d) NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)

22) Occupation 22:

§ Occupation: Mechanic

§ Date: 23/01/06

§ Owner: 42 (Essex Police)

§ Last Updated: 23/01/06

§ Additional Note:

a) Accused Offence: Use Disorderly Behaviour or Threatening/Abusive/Insulting Words Likely to Cause Harassment Alarm or Distress

b) Final Outcome: “Lost” Penalty Notice Issued On 23/01/06 At 42 (Essex Police) Fs/Ref: 42 (Essex Police)

c) 40. Arrest

d) REPORTED ON 23/01/06

e) 06/0000/00/113215C

f) PENALTY NOTICE

23) Occupation 23:

§ Occupation: Road Worker

§ Date: 02/04/03

§ Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

§ Last Updated: 25/10/04

§ Additional Note:

a) Accused Offence: Use Disorderly Behaviour or Threatening/Abusive/Insulting Words Likely to Cause Harassment Alarm or Distress

b) Final Outcome: “Lost” On 21/08/03 At Enfield Magistrates Court. Conditional Discharge 24 Months (Months) Eq-03005905m

c) 45. Arrest

d) CHARGED ON 02/04/03

e) 04/0000/00/1054471J

f) 62. Disposal (Court)

g) GUILTY

24) Occupation 24:

§ Occupation: Unemployed

§ Date: 08/05/02

§ Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

§ Last Updated: 10/05/02

§ Additional Note:

a) "Not in Work Out Code." No Supporting Information Regarding the Arrest Date, Accused Offence, Or Final Outcome.

25) Occupation 25:

· Occupation: Unemployed

· Date: 18/03/97

· Owner: 35 (Cambridgeshire Constabulary)

· Last Updated: 25/03/97

§ Additional Note:

a) "Not in Work Out Code." No Supporting Information Regarding the Arrest Date, Accused Offence, Or Final Outcome.

26) Occupation 26:

· Occupation: Schoolboy

· Date: 14/01/97

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Last Updated: 21/04/97

§ Additional Note:

a) "Not in Work Out Code." No Supporting Information Regarding the Arrest Date, Accused Offence, Or Final Outcome.

Findings Table: Occupation Records Summary and Removal Request

Occupation	Date	Owner	Status / Outcome	Request for Removal	Case Outcome
1. Entertainer	25/10/18	01 (Metropolitan Police)	5. Disposal (NFA)	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of further action.	Won
2. Self Employed	09/01/18	01 (Metropolitan Police)	No Action	Removal requested due to lack of significant details.	N/A
3. Unemployed	04/10/16	01 (Metropolitan Police)	No Action	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of further action.	N/A
4. Entertainer	14/08/16	01 (Metropolitan Police)	No Action	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of significant details.	N/A
5. Voluntary Worker	07/04/13	01 (Metropolitan Police)	No Action	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of supporting information.	N/A
6. Entertainer	25/01/13	01 (Metropolitan Police)	No Action	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of further action.	N/A
7. Voluntary Worker	N/A	01 (Metropolitan Police)	No Action	Removal requested due to vague description and lack of supporting information.	N/A
8. Director	14/08/12	20 (West Midlands Police)	20. Disposal (Court): Not Guilty	Removal requested due to successful case outcome.	Won
9. Entertainer	01/01/12	01 (Metropolitan Police)	"Not in Work Out Code."	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of supporting information.	N/A
10. Manager	04/09/11	01 (Metropolitan Police)	20. Disposal (Court): Not Guilty	Removal requested due to successful case outcome.	Won
11. Self Employed	02/05/10	01 (Metropolitan Police)	27. Disposal (Court): Guilty (Theft - Shoplifting)	§ Additional Note: a) 17. Arrest b) 09/0000/00/929328D c) 27. Disposal (Court) d) GUILTY e) THEFT - SHOPLIFTING	Lost
12. Catering Manager	07/08/09	22 (West Mercia Constabulary)	31. Disposal (NFA)	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of significant details.	N/A
13. Catering Wholesaler	26/07/09	23 (Warwickshire Constabulary)	"Not in Work Out Code."	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of supporting information.	N/A
14. Fast Food Employee	12/06/09	44 (Hampshire Constabulary)	25. Disposal (Court): Possess Ketamine	§ Additional Note: a) 21. Arrest b) 09/0000/00/528079N c) 25. Disposal (Court) d) POSSESS KETAMINE	Lost
15-16. Fast Food Employee	12/06/09	44 (Hampshire Constabulary)	26. Disposal (NFA)	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of supporting information.	N/A
17. Unemployed	12/06/09	44 (Hampshire Constabulary)	No Action	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of significant details.	N/A
18. Unemployed	19/02/09	01 (Metropolitan Police)	"Lost" At Court: Guilty (Possess Cannabis Resin)	§ Accused Offence: Possess A Controlled Drug – Class B – Cannabis Resin § Final Outcome: “Lost” On 06/03/09 At Enfield Magistrates Court. § Additional Note: a. Penalty: 1 Fine £65.00 (Cn0900610376) b. Forfeiture and Destruction of Cannabis Resin c. Costs £40.00 d. 36. Disposal (Court) e. 09/0000/00/174108M f. POSSESS A CONTROLLED DRUG - CLASS B - CANNABIS RESIN g. Offence Date(s): 19/02/09 h. PNC Printout 2012 i. On 19/02/09 (Plea: Guilty)	Lost
19. Car Salesman	05/02/09	01 (Metropolitan Police)	29. Disposal (Court): Not Guilty	Removal requested due to successful case outcome.	Won
20. Self Employed	05/05/06	41 (Hertfordshire Constabulary)	57. Disposal (NFA)	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of significant details.	N/A
21. Unemployed	25/03/06	42 (Essex Police)	55. Disposal (NFA)	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of significant details.	N/A
22. Mechanic	23/01/06	42 (Essex Police)	"Lost" Outcome: Penalty Notice	Penalty Notice	Lost
23. Road Worker	02/04/03	01 (Metropolitan Police)	62. Disposal (Court): Guilty	a) Accused Offence: Use Disorderly Behaviour or Threatening/Abusive/Insulting Words Likely to Cause Harassment Alarm or Distress b) Final Outcome: “Lost” On 21/08/03 At Enfield Magistrates Court. Conditional Discharge 24 Months (Months) Eq-03005905m c) 45. Arrest d) CHARGED ON 02/04/03 e) 04/0000/00/1054471J f) 62. Disposal (Court) g) GUILTY	Lost
24-26. Multiple (Unemployed/Schoolboy)	08/05/02 – 14/01/97	Multiple (Metropolitan Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary)	"Not in Work Out Code"	Removal requested due to irrelevance and lack of supporting information.	N/A

Conclusion:

The Claimant seeks the removal of the aforementioned occupation records from the ACRO Report on the following grounds:

Inaccuracy and Lack of Supporting Information:

· Numerous records are incomplete or marked as "Not in Work Out Code," with no information provided regarding the arrest date, accused offence, or final outcome. These entries do not accurately reflect the circumstances or outcomes.

Irrelevance to Rehabilitation:

· Several records pertain to cases where the outcome was "No Further Action" or a "Not Guilty" verdict, which are not relevant to the Claimant's rehabilitation or ongoing legal standing.

Principles of Fairness and Data Integrity:

· Retention of outdated, inaccurate, or unnecessary records undermines the accuracy and fairness of the “ACRO Report,” impacting the Claimant's rights under the “Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974” and “Data Protection Act 2018.”

Removing these records will ensure the ACRO Report reflects accurate, relevant, and fair information, supporting the Claimant's right to rehabilitation and data accuracy.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Habitual Dress)

CASE (M13)

Nub 13

ITEMS

Habitual Dress

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the " HABITUAL DRESS " contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same "Grossly-Term-Refs" as the requests prior made in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document" but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows:

B. Reasons for Requesting Removal of "HABITUAL DRESS" Entries from ACRO Report:

1) Inaccuracy: The "HABITUAL DRESS" entries may not accurately represent your clothing preferences or habits, leading to potential misunderstandings by law enforcement or other relevant authorities.

2) Privacy Concerns: Personal details about your habitual dress can be considered private. You may prefer that this information is not included in official records to protect your privacy.

3) Irrelevance: Over time, clothing preferences and habits can change. If the entries no longer reflect your current dress style, they may be irrelevant and should be removed to ensure an accurate representation.

4) Misidentification Risk: Outdated information on your habitual dress can increase the risk of misidentification or confusion during interactions with law enforcement or other entities.

5) Personal Preference: You have a personal preference for excluding certain details about your habitual dress from your official records for privacy or other reasons.

6) Record Clarity: Removing outdated or unnecessary entries can enhance the clarity and focus of your ACRO Report, ensuring that it contains only relevant and up-to-date information.

7) Data Protection Rights: Depending on data protection regulations, you may have the right to request the removal of personal information that is no longer necessary or conflicts with privacy regulations.

8) Accuracy and Transparency: Requesting the removal of outdated entries promotes accuracy and transparency in your records, ensuring that they provide an accurate reflection of your current circumstances.

C. Habitual Dress =

Ø Habitual Dress 1

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Description: Jeans Jacket and Trainers

· Owner: 35 (Cambridgeshire Constabulary)

Ø Habitual Dress 2

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Description: Jeans, Bl Ack Leather Jacket, White Trainers, With A Blue Flash

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Habitual Dress 3

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Description: Joggers and Sweatshirt

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Habitual Dress 4

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Description: Casual

· Owner: 48 (City of London Police)

Ø Habitual Dress 5

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Habitual Dress 6

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Habitual Dress 7

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Description: Western, Typic Al UK.

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Habitual Dress 8

· Type: Habitual Dress

· Description: X

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

D. By addressing these reasons, you can tailor your request for the removal of specific "HABITUAL DRESS" entries from your ACRO Report to better reflect your personal preferences, protect your privacy, and maintain accurate and up-to-date records.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Jewellery)

CASE (N14)

Nub 14

ITEMS

Jewellery

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the "JEWELLERY" contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same "Grossly-Term-Refs" as the requests prior made in part "Nub 1" of this "Official Document" but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows:

B. Reasons for Requesting Removal of "JEWELLERY" Entries from ACRO Report:

1) Inaccurate Information: It has come to my attention that certain jewellery descriptions associated with my name within the report may be erroneous or incomplete, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misjudgements.

2) Lack of Relevance: The descriptions of these "JEWELLERY" items seem to bear no direct relevance to any matter under investigation. Their inclusion appears superfluous and unnecessary.

3) Privacy and Data Protection: I am deeply concerned about the detailed descriptions of personal "JEWELLERY" items being retained in a law enforcement report. This seems to be in violation of fundamental principles of privacy and data protection, especially if these details do not pertain to any ongoing criminal investigation.

4) Risk of Bias and Stereotyping: The inclusion of specific "JEWELLERY" details could inadvertently introduce bias or stereotypes into law enforcement proceedings. It is essential that law enforcement is based on objective, pertinent information.

5) Efficient Resource Allocation: For the efficient allocation of law enforcement resources, it is imperative to include only relevant data in the report. Entries related to "JEWELLERY" that hold no direct bearing on any criminal activity may divert resources away from more pressing matters.

6) Enhanced Transparency: Removing irrelevant "JEWELLERY" entries from the report enhances transparency in law enforcement practices. It ensures that only pertinent, substantive information is retained.

7) Focus on Critical Data: Eliminating non-essential details such as "JEWELLERY" descriptions allows the report to concentrate on more crucial information directly linked to any ongoing investigations.

8) Protection from Misuse: There is a concern that detailed "JEWELLERY" descriptions may be misused, potentially leading to unfounded accusations or even identity theft. Removing such entries mitigates this risk.

9) Upholding Human Rights: Respecting human rights and personal privacy is paramount. It is in line with these principles that I make this request for the removal of irrelevant "JEWELLERY" entries from the ACRO Report.

C. Jewellery =

Ø Jewellery 1

· Type: Jewellery

· Description: Earring / Earring Left Ear

· Owner: 35 (Cambridgeshire Constabulary)

Ø Jewellery 2

· Type: Jewellery

· Description: Neck chain / Has Two Gold Rings on Chain

· Owner: 35 (Cambridgeshire Constabulary)

Ø Jewellery 3

· Type: Jewellery

· Description: Earring / L/Ear

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Jewellery 4

· Type: Jewellery

· Description: Neck chain / A Studded Boxing Glove Pend Ant

· Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

Ø Jewellery 5

· Type: Jewellery

· Description: Neck chain / YM Chain with Boxing Glove

· Owner: 42 (Essex Police)

D. There are multiple cases involving Mr. Simon Paul Cordell and both the “Cambridgeshire Constabulary” and the “Metropolitan Police.” Some of these cases have been resolved, while others remain unresolved. However, due to a lack of proper identification, we are unable to link the data related to these cases effectively. As a result, the outcomes of the "Jewellery Cases" cannot be officially documented or recognized, rendering the information irrelevant. I sincerely hope that these reasons demonstrate the necessity of removing these specific "Jewellery" entries from the ACRO Report, as they establish that the inclusion of this information is not only unwarranted but also poses potential risks to privacy, fairness, and the efficient operation of law enforcement processes.

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (Any Other Police Archived Data)

CASE (O15)

Nub 15

ITEMS

Any other Police Archived Data

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the “OTHER DETAILS” Contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same “Grossly-Term-Refs” as the requests prior made in part “Nub 1” of this “Official Document” but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows: --

i. Reason One: --

· For

OTHER INFORMATION

ACRO 2017

ASBO

RAVES

A. General Information

1) This document provides insight into the Now Claimants criminal records for the years 2017, 2020, and 2021, sourced from the police national dispatch system. Our request for this information, detailed in the attached file labelled as "Other Information / Acro 2017," is motivated by several key factors.

B. A Brief Overview

1) One of the primary motivations behind Our requesting of the ACRO Report stems from a government-issued ASBO “Anti-Social Behaviour Order” application that erroneously subjected the Now Claimant to an arduous 8-year period of imposed conditions. These unjust conditions detrimentally impacted his prospects, including the ability to run a successful company and maintain a fair standard of living.

C. Why Combine ASBO Order Files and PNC Files?

1) Crucially, it's essential to note that the Now Claimant was never arrested for the offenses attributed to the ASBO. This absence of arrest prevented a fair investigation from taking place. Additionally, during court appearances, the Now Claimant was unjustly denied the opportunity to speak. The ASBO application was illicitly and inaccurately lodged against the Now Claimant by members of the Police, Council, and Neighbourhood Watch Team.

2) A pivotal piece of evidence supporting this assertion is the ASBO application itself, which incorrectly accuses the Now Claimant of “Organizing Illegal Raves.” But under the United Kingdom’s Statue of Laws, Organizing Illegal Raves is undoubtedly a criminal offense, governed by the “Raves Bill 1994” within the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act. This offense carries a maximum sentence of three months in prison or a fine of up to £2,500. The Now Claimant, however, was unjustly handed a two-year sentence during trial preparation, which was later increased to five years after Deliberate Misconduct by Government Officials.

3) The fact that the Now Claimant was not arrested also means that the ASBO did not appear on his criminal record as a Criminal Offense even when the case brought against him was “Organizing Illegal Raves.” Clearly using the word Illegal as he and other continued to complain about their fundamental rights to a claim in of an “Unfair Trial”.

4) Throughout the time served pertaining to the Asbo the Police, council, Neighbourhood Teams frauded application against the Now claimant was published within the “World-Ide Media” while he awaited his right to Appeal. The newspaper Articles printed his full details alongside with Our listed: --

I. A

II. A

5) The Criminal, labelled offence remained documented in the ACRO Report / also known as the Now Claimants PNC Record until time served, at which point the information was questioned by the Now Claimant and his “Support Network” as to the Official Persons handling of the file as to its classification.

At no point of time did the Now Claimant and his “Support Network” request for the removal of the file and because they all were complaining about mutable issues with the ASBO Application.

6) Another Reasons that he ACRO Reports were sought is due to several reasons. Firstly, they were requested to verify whether the ASBO information was correctly recorded.

Secondly, they were needed to address discrepancies related to a “Failing to Surrender to Custody” charge, which led to remand in prison. Subsequent investigations with court officials confirmed that the Now Claimant and his mother were indeed correct in disputing this charge.

7) Additionally: changes to police officer names listed in the ASBO application are confirmed by the ACRO Reports.

D. Harassment / Malicious Abuse of Process

1) The documentation pertaining to the ASBO, which was included in the ACRO Report from 2014 to 2021, is presented below. It outlines the police classification and provides further insights, as elaborated upon in the attached "Other Information / Acro 2017" document.

E. Other Information / Acro 2017

· Report 1

· Class: Criminal Behaviour Order

· Issued At: Wood Green Crown Court

· For: Criminal Behaviour Order

· Power: Cond arrest (Conditional Arrest)

· Fs Ref.: 01 (Metropolitan Police)

· Case Papers: 01YE

· End Date: 03/08/20.

· Conditions:

1) Must Not Be Concerned in The Organization of a Rave as Defined by S.63(1) Or S63(1a) Of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

2) Knowingly Use or Supply Property, Personal or Otherwise, For Use in A Rave as Defined by S.63(1) Of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

3) Enter Or Remain in Any Disused or Abandoned Building Unless Invited to Do So in Writing by A Registered Charitable Organization or Local Authority or Owner of The Premises.

4) Provide Any Service in Respect of Any Licensable Activity in an Unlicensed Premises.

5) Enter Any Non-Residential Private Property (By Which Words Buildings and An Open Enclosed and Are Intended to Be Individual) Or an Industrial Estate Between the Hours Of 22:00 And 07:00.

6) Without Written Permission from The Owner and A Leaseholder of Such Property. If You Can Demonstrate That the Purpose of Your Entry of Such Property Is to Purchase Goods or Services.

7) From Any Shop or Garage or Fuel Supplier Which Is Open to The Public at Such Times. Then In Such Event, You May Enter but You Must Not Remain on Such Property for Longer Than 30 Minutes and You.

8) May Do So on Only One Occasion During Each Separate Nine Hour Period Between 22:00 And 07:00 Daily.

F. Other Details =

Ø Other Detail 1

Text: Attends Tuition School - Expelled
Owner: 01 (Metropolitan Police)
Last Updated: 21/04/97

“Not in Work Out Code”

Can’t Find information supporting the Arrest date or accused offence or final outcome as the Asbo was illegally obtained and developed.

Addressing issues that are contained I this document latter that are of relevance to

Claim-Sheet

WHAT HAS HAPPENED

OUR REQUESTS

POLICE MARKERS: -- (DNA Report)

CASE (P16)

Nub 16

ITEMS

DNA

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

Yes ☐

No ☐

· If There Is Any Other Acceptable Information, Please Provide It Below!

A. The Claimant requests that of the “DNA REPORT” Contained in the attached file to his name that is known as an ACRO Report when reviewed by Official persons of relevance to class this listed as the same “Grossly-Term-Refs” as the requests prior made in part “Nub 1” of this “Official Document” but with the additional Requests or due to Reasons if any as follows: --

i. Reason One: --

· For

Ø DNA Report Summary =

DNA Report Summary / 2021 Acro =

WORK OUT CODE	26
DNA Report 1
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	06/0000/00/397207P
DNA Status:	CONFIRMED
Sample Barcode:	96988294
Date of Sample:	15/05/06
Sent to Lab:	FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE (FSS)
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	42 (ESSEX POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED
Test Method:	SGMPLUS (SECOND GENERATION MULTIPLEX PLUS)

The Now Claimant won this case at court and requests the files removal.

DNA Report 2

WORK OUT CODE	55
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	97/0000/00/193878F
DNA Status:	CONFIRMED
Sample Barcode:	90437213
Date of Sample:	28/02/97
Sent to Lab:	FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE (FSS)
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED
Test Method:	SGM (SECOND GENERATION MULTIPLEX)

For DNA Report 2

· This DNA Report says it for the following case: -

1 Taking Motor Vehicle Without Consent

2 Using Vehicle While Uninsured

3 Driving Otherwise Than in Accordance with A Licence

4 For this case as well as others the Plea dates are not correct as they are the same as the offence dates in the Acro Reports and the PNC Printouts.

· But “DNA Report 2” also states it for a case in 1997 before the first reprimand warning!

· 21/05/98 not in the Court reg and it wrote it’s not there. 97/0000/00/193878F by the Courts Staff admitted in the Emails between them.

DNA Report 3

WORK OUT CODE	18
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	07/01YT/01/34813D
DNA Status:	DESTROYED
Sample Barcode:	98407055
Date of Sample:	23/11/07
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED

DNA Report 4

WORK OUT CODE	22
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	06/0000/00/1629163X
DNA Status:	DESTROYED
Sample Barcode:	97658916
Date of Sample:	21/12/06
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED

End Taken from ACRO Report 2021.

a) The file is an image in the “Simulation File.”

· Sent: 18 September 2015 15:00

· Attachments: Court-List-From-Benedicta.pdf

1+ 06/08/97 not in the Court reg 97/0000/00/236370T

2+ 12/11/97 not in the Court reg 97/0000/00/768545U

3+ 13/11/97 not in the Court reg 97/0000/00/768545U

4+ 21/05/98 not in the Court reg and it wrote it’s not there. “97/0000/00/193878F”

5+ 05/01/01 not in the Court reg 00/0000/00/1139706K

6+ 17/08/02 not in the Court reg “Not in PNC”

7+ 24/04/03 not in the Court reg 02/0000/00/556175K

These are in the PNC printout of the Asbo made by police.

Also, in the original copy the biro pen is made by the staff of the Court.

The cases above are definitely not in the Court Registry as they never happened.

The files are kept in fire safe boxes and no pages are allowed to be ripped out of the registry.

Court Registrars and Registers of the Magistrates' Court:

Court registrars are administrative officers in the court system who handle various administrative tasks related to court proceedings. They maintain records, process documents, and assist judges, lawyers, and the public with matters related to court cases.

Registers of the Magistrates' Court refer to the official records or documents where court proceedings, orders, judgments, and other important information are recorded. These registers are used to keep a chronological record of the court's activities and decisions.

Handling of Court Files:

Court files, which contain documents related to court cases, are generally handled with care to ensure the integrity of the legal process. Pages being ripped out of court files would likely be against established procedures due to the need to maintain an accurate record of proceedings and decisions.

The handling and safekeeping of court files are subject to specific rules and regulations to ensure transparency, fairness, and security. Unauthorized alteration, removal, or tampering with court documents can have serious legal consequences, as it can undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

In most jurisdictions, court files are considered legal records and are subject to retention schedules and archival procedures. These procedures vary from place to place but generally aim to ensure that court records are preserved for historical, legal, and administrative purposes. Court records are often accessible to the public, but certain sensitive information may be redacted or protected for privacy reasons.

It's important to emphasize that intentionally damaging or altering court documents, including ripping pages out of them, can be a violation of the law and may result in penalties or legal consequences.

SUMMARY

One

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SO FAR: --

Our Comprehensive Assessment

· Reveals that the entity integrity of the data held by the police in connection with the Now Claimant, as documented within their ACRO Report, is fundamentally compromised across various classed categories such as: --

1) Police National Computer Nominal Report Nominal Details / ACRO: --

Data integrity issues arise due to cross-contamination of government-official categorized files, leading to inaccuracies in the proper structuring of relevant mandatory files associated with proven guilt.

2) Personal Description: --

The accuracy of personal description data is called into question, potentially leading to wrongful identifications and arrests.

3) Driver Details: --

Irrelevant and wrongful arrest or summons references may lead to misinformation and misrepresentation of the Now Claimant's identity.

4) Aliases Alias 1: --

Data inaccuracies within alias details could result in improper profiling and potential misjudgements.

5) Alias Dates of Birth: --

Issues in alias date of birth entries could lead to confusion and procedural errors.

6) Warning Signals: --

The presence of warning signals may be compromised by inaccurate data inputs, impacting law enforcement actions.

7) Information Markers: --

Data inaccuracies in information markers lead to misguided assessments and actions.

8) Marks and Scars: --

Incorrect entries in marks and scars information lead to misidentifications and improper procedures.

9) Photograph Locations: --

Inaccuracies in photograph location data hinder the proper documentation and identification process.

10) Identity Numbers: --

Issues in identity number entries may lead to complications in proper identification and recordkeeping.

11) Passports: --

The accuracy of passport data may influence travel-related judgments and decisions.

12) Occupations: --

Incorrect occupation data may affect assessments and decisions related to the Now Claimant's professional activities.

13) Habitual Dress: --

Inaccurate habitual dress entries could lead to mistaken identifications and actions.

14) Jewellery: --

Issues in jewellery-related data may impact identifications and investigations.

15) Other Details: --

Data inaccuracies within other details could lead to misconceptions and flawed judgments.

16) DNA Report: --

Compromised DNA report data hinder accurate forensic assessments and conclusions.

These Discrepancies Arise due to the very reasons the police policies aim to prevent, such as: --

1) Cross Contamination of Government-Official Categorized Files:

· Inadequate maintenance of correct file structures with relevant mandatory files for proven guilt-related offenses.

2) Irrelevant and Wrongful Arrest/Summons References:

· Misleading references that inaccurately identify the Now Claimant, leading to wrongful actions.

3) DNA Status, Date of Sample, Sample Type, Fingerprint Status, Date Arrested, Last Updated, Case Name:

· Ongoing issues persist where arresting officers are implicated in wrongful detention, illegal remand dates, and unauthorized continuation of actions against the Now Claimant.

4) NFA Date, Offence Date(s), Harassment, Abuse of Process:

· The integrity of these records is undermined, potentially leading to miscarriages of justice.

In Light of These Findings: --

1) It Becomes Evident that corrective actions are imperative to rectify data inaccuracies and uphold fairness, accuracy, and the principles of justice.

Impending Prosecutions

1) Specific Instances Of Errors Include:

a) 21/05/98: Not found in court records. 97/0000/00/193878F

b) 05/01/01: Not found in court records.

c) 17/08/02: Not found in court records.

d) 24/04/03: Not found in court records.

e) 25/01/08: A failure-to-surrender charge dismissed by the judge.