Page 1313 - Driving Ban Simulation 1

➢ My son did not need to lie he give PC G his insurance cert with no problem he had done nothing wrong, so
would have had no need to give a wrong address as he would know it would have shown on the police
system, why would my son say he was homeless? It was not my son that lied it was PC G and I believe that
has already been proven.
➢ I believe 3 weeks is enough time for PC G to come forward and is acceptable.
➢ If the inspector had done his job when he come to the road side when my son asked if one could have been
called this could have all been avoided, but instead he just went with what the police officer said
3380,
➢ and did not brother to check what my son was saying.
➢ Something always come to mind here and that is what was written in the subject access request I got back
from my son's insurance company, this was after the time we spent trying to stop the insurance company
cancelling my son's insurance and going to courts.
➢ When I saw this, it hurt as we knew the police had not told the truth and in the subject access request there
was nothing to say my son was not in the wrong.
➢ There was no sorry there was nothing and this is just wrong.
➢ My son was the one that had the bad mark against his name for a long time until it was proven in the appeal
court, not the police officer and this is still the case to this day the police officer has done nothing wrong in
everyone's eyes when he did do wrong.
➢ He has been allowed to move on in his life, my son was the one spending all the time to clear his name not
the police officer when my son had done nothing wrong. "[ ...] Which is obviously ... we're in an awkward
situation as well because [Data Subject] and [Data Subject] mum is constantly ringing us up.
➢ They don't understand that obviously we are going to take a police officer's views over obviously one of our
policyholders because obviously a police officer's job is obviously to tell the truth and not to lie."
➢ This is the action of most people’s view but in this case the police officer was not telling the truth my son
was. And my son was the one being made to suffer when he had not done anything wrong.
➢ But yet people believe the police in everything they say.
➢ I know you have said PC G's current occupation. I can assure you it would have no bearing on this matter
whatsoever.
➢ Maybe I see it another way his occupation is Head of Criminal Justice, Centre for Social Justice, can’t you
see the irony in this he is trying to find justice for people, but what he did in this case was never justice at his
own hands, the DPS never served justice for my son, yet they knew PC G had lied in this whole case, and
that PC G took it to the courts and again never told the truth and perjury himself two times in a court of law.
➢ PC G seems to think this is acceptable he still applied for his job roll where he is working to make sure
justice is fair for all.
➢ I am sure if he had admitted to breaking the law in what he did he would not be in the position he is in now I
do find this very relevant that is how I feel and my son does.
Best Regards
Lorraine Cordell

From: Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk
mailto:Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 07 August 2017 09:44
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Morning Lorraine,
➢ Firstly, apologies for my delayed reply!
➢ I had intended to reply much sooner.
➢ I think I’m correct in saying that the necessity for your son’s arrest was associated with PC G’s uncertainty
as to the address provided.
➢ This is something I’ll discuss in the report.