More pertinent questions about the Shoreham Air-show Crash… A Special Report by Matt Taylor.

Do you remember the fuss about two Sussex Police officers taking a selfie at the scene of the Shoreham air-show crash and sending it to a colleague with the hash-tag – Human Barbeque?


Why did Sussex Police make public a story which painted them in a bad light, when there was absolutely no reason for them to do so?

This is the pressing question in relation to the Shoreham air-show crash which has never been answered.

A few days after the Shoreham air-show crash in which 11 people lost their lives when a jet crashed into them while driving along the A27, the story broke that two probationary Sussex Police offices took a video selfie, labelled it ‘Human Barbecue’ and sent it privately by Snapchat to a colleague in Sussex Police.

We must remember that the beauty of snapchat is that the video or picture sent will be erased 10 seconds after the recipient had viewed it.

The then assistant Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney said the actions of the probationary officers “undoubtedly” caused distress to the victim’s families… Well if that’s the case; can’t it be argued that Sussex Police intentionally caused ‘distress’ to the victims families by publicizing the story?

The answer is obviously yes…

Gallow Humour

The unpleasant part of any police officer’s job is the picking up of human body parts following fatal accidents. Somebody has got to and it’s often tasked to police officers to do it. Gallow humour is a natural response to these events which allows police officers, ambulance staff, firemen and doctors to deal with unpleasant, serious and painful circumstances of their everyday jobs.

Often described as witticism in response to a hopeless situation, arising from stressful, traumatic and life-threatening situations; Gallow Humour helps to stop the people who deal with these circumstances from becoming shell-shocked by their experiences  A level of detachment often occurs, as a defence mechanism to deal with the grotesque scenes they are called to attend.

Sussex Police should have responded in kind and dealt with the ‘human barbecue’ selfie in-house.

Where was their duty of care to their own probationary police officers?

There was absolutely no public interest in making the ‘human barbecue’ story known and any other police force would have dealt with the incident behind closed doors. The question which now needs to be answered is why did Sussex Police break the news themselves, which as a result, “undoubtedly” caused distressed to the victim’s families?

Putting yourself in the shoes of the family members of the victims, the last thing you would have wanted to read in your newspaper is that the police officers guarding the crash scene were taking morbid selfies of the body remains of your loved ones.

Sussex police have a duty of care to serve and protect the residents of Sussex. By releasing this story, (which would never have been made public by any other source), demonstrates at best an error of judgment by Sussex Police, and at worse, an exercise to deflect attention from something else.

Of-course, Olivia Pinkley, (now the first ever female Chief Constable of Hampshire), would have said that Sussex Police released the news to demonstrate their good governance in weeding out poor police officers. After-all, since the truth of the Hillsborough cover-up was made public, public opinion of police corruption is at an all-time low.

But still it doesn’t make sense to release a story, which did cause distress to the victim’s families, when if they dealt with it in-house, would never have been publicly known and wouldn’t have tarnished the reputation of Sussex Police.

Mystery has surrounded the Shoreham air-show crash after the pilot Andy Hill, miraculously survived the immense fireball that erupted once the jet hit the ground, without a scratch.

Andy Hill driving a £40,000 Porsche Boxster months after the crash 

At first it was believed that a UFO may have caused the crash.

Then the nation’s most hated conspiracy theorist, Chris Spivey, implied the Shoreham air-show crash was a false flag event.

Then there was the news that Sussex Police appealed to the High Court for information held by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), of which the request was rejected.

This begs another pertinent question which isn’t being asked by the mainstream media.

Why is Sussex Police wasting tax-payers money to get information from the AAIB, before the AAIB have submitted their final report into the air-crash?

The issues around Sussex police taking the Ministry of Transport (to whom the AAIB report) to the High Court to secure the cockpit video footage seems to be an abuse of that power since the AAIB first have to produce their final report on the crash as to the causes and range of factors which caused it.

Surely before this happens, the police cannot take a view as to whether there is any grounds to pursue a manslaughter charge against the pilot Andy Hill.

As it stands now there are two parallel enquiries being undertaken at the same time:

  1. The AAIB conducting their own investigation to work out the cause and make recommendations for air and public safety, and
  2. The police trying to pursue a manslaughter charge

There is clearly a conflict of interest which could have repercussions to the AAIB making recommendations to support the police and an action against the pilot.

Sussex Police are up to something… Up to something sinister and dangerous. They’ve taken steps to make us look left, while they do something on the right.

This isn’t the first time Sussex Police have been exposed of dealing in skullduggery.


Taylor v’s Spivey: A Special Report by Matt Taylor

Brian Setchfield once said that I’m better than Chris Spivey because I don’t swear!

drummer boy

Following on from the success of Katy Bourne v’s Matt Taylor, the ultimate show down needs to be addressed, Matt Taylor v’s Chris Spivey!

In his recent article ‘So where does that leave Madeleine?’, Spivey makes a point of pointing out the ‘ego’s’ of those who dare to question his research, by saying:

“Course, those who have been denouncing me lately with comments about how I have lost the plot, or I have been blackmailed into using these photo comparisons, or I am working for MI5, all fall into two groups. Group A. Those who think that they are so wide awake and egotistical that anything passed their point of understanding must be bullshit….. Lose the ego fellas, you have an awful long journey to travel yet. Group B. GCHQ paid/blackmailed trolls desperately trying to make me look a laughing stock because I have nearly cracked how the monsters game plan works… Fuck off from my website you sewer dwelling scabby nonce cunts.”

With a readership in it’s millions, I’m mere plankton, compared to the Blue Whale sized support he commands.

During my heyday (see the links below); my readership briefly touched a million a month, but having reduced my contribution to the Alternative Media to a minimum, my readership has since plummeting to a hundred or so people who read my blogs on a daily basis.


Spivey beats me hands down, he’s without doubt the ‘TOP DOG’ when it comes to readership numbers.

But the question needs to be asked; what have we achieved?

Chris Spivey is keen to boast that his research is rock solid; as he say’s himself, “It is indisputable and impossible to debunk.”

But regardless of the substance, has it made a difference?

The ‘Powers that Shouldn’t Be’ are still in charge. They are still free and they are still continuing to implement their evil agenda of deception, mass murder and corruption.

As far as I’m aware Spivey has failed to bring about any detectable change, (except for the Daily Mail printing stories which contradict those which Spivey writes about), where as I’ve managed to get the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) to launch an investigation into Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne.

Without ‘losing my ego’, is it fair to say I’ve brought about change, where as Spivey hasn’t?

Its all well and good writing about deep secret conspiracies, but if no one can get their heads around it to understand it, is it even worth it?

Its all very well Spivey encouraging his readers to go to their local police stations to report crimes based on his research, but if his readers cannot understand what he writes or are unable to get their heads around the enormity of the conspiracy which Spivey claims to have uncovered, then what is the point?

He writes, “I have given you more than enough indisputable evidence that extreme, organized crime is being committed….. So report it. In fact I think that it is an offence not to. And when I say report it, I don’t mean email your PCC enclosing a link to this or other articles… Indeed, that will get you nowhere. Course, by all means print off any relevant information to include as proof but you must report your allegation in person at your local police station…. Do not be fobbed off. You are a British citizen reporting an extremely serious crime that is occurring on British soil. Don’t just sit back and leave it to others, that ain’t going to work because you can bet your fucking life that those ‘others’ will be doing the same as you.”

“Do not be fobbed off.”

There is one subject which Spivey dares not comment on and that’s the Hampstead Kids. He’s continually refused to publicly state whether he believes the Hampstead Kids, or if he thinks they are lying, coached to say what they’ve said by an evil mother and boyfriend intent on ruining the reputation of Ricky Dearman, and smearing the Hampstead community.

I became involved in the Alternative Media because I thought it was the best vehicle to expose the truth and rid the world of the liars and cheats who occupy seats of power and authority across the globe.

Sadly my faith in the Alternative Media crumbled to dust after the Alternative Media’s leading personalities, turned on the Hampstead kids by calling them liars.

This was the break-through we were waiting for, a story we could all champion and expose together.

I asked Chris Spivey a very simple question: Do you believe the Hampstead kids? To which I got this convoluted answer:

Subject: RE: Hampstead
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:08:07 +0000

Hello Matthew,

I trust you are well and that you have your financial and accommodation problems sorted out now.

Matthew, this is your second email to me in less than 24 hours, the first of which you began:

“I’m sorry I’ve been a pain but I just need to know what you think about the Hampstead case”.

You then go on to demand a yes or no answer to whether I believe the “Hampstead kids”.

Yet when I don’t jump to attention and get back to you straight away you revert to being a pain in the arse and send a follow up email, again demanding a yes or no answer as to my position on the “Hampstead kids”.

Therefore you lied to me because you are not sorry for being a pain in the arse.

Moreover, whilst being a pain in the arse you quote me as saying in a “recent article”: if anyone disbelieves the Hampstead kids they must either be – A troll. A fool. Reluctant to step out of their comfort zone.

Yet I have never ever written any such thing Matthew!

I also feel that I should point out to you that in your capacity as the “daddy of the Alternative Media” mine and anyone elses position on any given story should not matter a jot to you. Indeed, as the “daddy” you surely lead and fuck what anyone else thinks about anything… You do however need to work on your hardman act because you actually come across as a bit gay.
Nevertheless, for all you know Matthew I might have written an article on the “Hampstead kids” since you no longer have any interest in what I write – In fact I believe that your exact words were::

“Well, that’s made my mind up for sure! That’s the last Spivey article I’m going to read. What a fucking waste of time that was”.

And surely you are a man of your word Matthew?

However, just to recap:

Whilst pursuing a course of conduct tantamount to harassment 

You demonstrate your lack of integrity by lying to me whilst being a right pain in the arse and accusing me of writing statements that I haven’t yet feel you have the right to demand a personal audience with me as befits your superior standing in the Alternative Media, despite coming across as a bit of a gay clown who no longer has any interest in what I have to say on anything

And with that being the case, I feel a more business like approach is needed.

Therefore my terms are as follows:

A straight yes or no answer…………………. £100

A detailed summary…………………………… £500

Terms are non-negotiable, Payment is in advance.

Don’t thank me.


Spivey is happy to waste 458 letters when two or three letters would have sufficed…

Talk about gratitude?

I’ve written more about Chris Spivey than any else I know. On the whole, I like to think everything I’ve written about him is fair, balanced and true.

Where-as other people like Kevin Boyle (for example) isn’t so kind or forgiving.

In all probability I’ve given Chris Spivey thousands of pounds worth of free publicity, and when I ask for a simply yes or not answer, to a very simply question, I get told:

My terms are as follows:

A straight yes or no answer…………………….. £100

A detailed summary………………………………. £500

Talk about gratitude?

Chris Spivey

Everything you always wanted to know about Chris Spivey, but were afraid to ask:


There are only a few leading men left in the Alternative/Truth movement.

Richard D Hall leads the way with his ground-breaking Rich Planet TV Show which continues to expose serious wrong-doing in government and media; the latest of which is his Didcot exposure, which calls into question the police’s verdict of Jed Allen being a ‘Wolverine obsessed’ fan guilty of murdering his family.

Miles Johnson who organizes the Bases conferences is doing sterling work in exposing deep dark secrets of the military and black op organizations, blazing the way in highlighting the murder of ‘Super Solider’ Max Spiers earlier this year.

James Corbett of the Corbett Report continues to lead the way in how one man can deliver a professional and ground-breaking news service from a spare bedroom.

To John Paterson who is involved in the Royal Commission to expose corruption in government, to Brian Setchfield who is putting himself forward as the alternative PM to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.

The leading men in the Alternative Media are spread thin to the ground.

(Please feel free to correct me: Unlike Chris Spivey my thought’s and opinions are open to challenge. If you believe someone needs mentioning due to their sterling work in the Alternative movement, please let me know.)

I remember the good old days, when I couldn’t say boo to a goose, without the likes of Danielle La Verite and her legion of sycophant minions jumping on the band-wagon to shout, leer and throw rotten tomatoes at me.

Take for example what Tony Sayers said in response to one of my Matt’s News videos published on the 3rd April 2015:

  • Tony Sayers: Ha ha I need a fucking good laugh! He’s a bit special isn’t he?
  • Danielle La Verite: Bloody Petrifying

Tony Sayers has since been exposed as a psychopathic sexual predator.

Or when wannabe pirate Kai Bowman warned me that he will not be bated.

  • Kai Bowman: Matt Taylor! I will not be bated into a trap, I wondered what your next game play would be. I didn’t reply because I seriously questioned your sanity.

Or when Danielle La Verite used to threaten me with all sorts of things:

  • Terry Colbeck: Think he’s picked a fight with the wrong person here he’ll be taken down like others have
  • Danielle La verite: Oh he has. Believe me. I’ll just have him done for harassment, malicious communication, stalking and then I’ll sue him
  • Nicola Johnson: What an ugly cunt he is looks like a brick has met his face a few times already

While the best was when Danielle La Verite really went to town on me

  • Danielle La Verite: Matt Taylor, I’m warning you officially now. Back the fuck off from me and my friends. We all know what your agenda is. One more word and you’ll have a libel case so far up your arse you’ll be bummed by Michael Clarke Duncan You don’t get 2 warnings.

God I miss the good old days!

I remember with fond memories how Patrick Henningsen berated me for always making lists! When Ian R Crane called me a ‘maverick’ and ‘a loose cannon’, when Spivey called me a ‘Gay Clown’ and Danielle La Verite called me a ‘Genius’, only to swiftly change her mind and call me a ‘cunt’ instead!

The fond memories of Lisa Pea having a go at me for having a go at Spivey and the likes of Thomas Sheridan and everyone at UK Column News blocking me from engaging in any further conversation.

Everything has changed since the heady days of 2015 when the Alternative Media was in full swing. We were close to changing the world, but then the Hampstead Kids told us their story and the Alternative Media collapsed in on itself and its never been the same again.

Big hitter Thomas Sheridan was the first to come out and lambast the Hampstead kids’s testimony as lies, which consequently resulted in all his fans doing the same, because none of them wanted to be seen disagreeing with their almighty cult leader.

Danielle La Verite, who at the time was a rising star in the Alternative Media, followed suit and called the Hampstead kids liars too.

To be honest; I was dumb-founded… My spirit was broken and my opinion of the Alternative Media has never been the same again.

But I digress…

The point I want to make is, have either of us (Spivey and I) made any damn difference to the world around us?

I’m as human as the next human and my ego is the same as everyone else. I’d admit that I’m still fuming over how Spivey answered my question about the Hampstead Kids. I’m certainly not demanding a “personal audience” with him as he suggests, I’m just looking for a yes or no answer!

By God, when I ask the question and HELL broke loose.

Spivey has an opinion on everything else; I still don’t understand why he hasn’t given his opinion about the Hampstead kids. After-all, it is the biggest story to hit the Alternative Media in a life-time.

Spivey could have the whole country reading his blog but if nothing changes, what’s the point?


John Paterson and Brian Setchfield on Andy Peacher’s Radio Show -Thurs 6 Oct 2016


Exposing Corporate Frauds and Bringing Down the Chain Of Command Within the Lies Corruption Money Laundering and much more.

Freedom Talk Radio Listener based award-winning community radio station serving The Highlands Of Scotland and the towns and villages within the Caithness And Sutherland Areas.

Our name comes from Freedom Talk Liberty Justice. We broadcast Talk Radio hit music from the last 50 years plus specialist programmes, news and local community information, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Unlike commercial radio, Freedom Talk Radio is a community station.

This means we are a non-profit organisation. We are here to inform and entertain the people about how to avoid the injustices of the world as well as playing an active part in the community and providing training opportunities.


Join Will Black TOMORROW Fri Oct 7 for his 3 hour #AcousticRock Show Live Stream on Facebook


3 Hour #AcousticRock Show Live Stream

TOMORROW Friday Oct 7 @ 2 PM EST / 7 PM UK

Please join me tomorrow online when I’ll be performing a special 3 hour live stream show on Facebook. This is where I get to perform your favourite rock songs on acoustic guitar by request.

I’ve just recently started streaming my shows from the new Facebook Live service and the response has been incredible.

Show starts 2 PM EST / 7 PM UK.

I’ll also be talking up my premiere fan service ‘The Inner Circle’ where I offer tons of exclusive content not available anywhere else.

This live stream show is free to watch for everyone on Facebook and is accessible from all mobile devices and desktop computers.

Broadcast begins streaming live at 2 PM EST / 7 PM UK.

Thanks and I hope to see you in the chat room with your song requests tomorrow! WB


Read more: Will Black Rocks the UK Again!

Shoreham Air-Show cover-up? A Special Report by Matt Taylor


Cover up : Noun

1. an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.

There can be no denying there is a cover-up in place to hide the truth about the Shoreham air-show crash.

Its not a conspiracy theory, it’s happened.

High Court ruling: Police refused access to pilot statements over Shoreham Airshow crash.

An attempt to prevent Sussex Police discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime on the 22 August 2015, at the Shoreham air-show, has been made after The High Court refused Sussex Police access to records held by the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB), about what happened on that fateful day.

Specifically; Sussex Police are being prevented to know exactly what the pilot, Andrew Hill said in the moments after the crash, and what the data from the flight recorder revealed. The Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Giles York has been granted a copy of the cockpit footage, which former AAIB investigator Phil Giles says will provide the police with enough information to conclude their investigation.

With the public left scratching their heads as to why the AAIB are keeping crucial evidence secret, Sussex Police appear to totally understand. Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz said, “We accept the reasons why our request has not been granted in full.”

But the public are none the wiser

A spokesman for AAIB said, “The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.” 

As the comments from the public point out:

  • “Eleven people died in this awful event. This is a further insult to them and their families. No doubt legal arguments have been devoid of all common sense.”

While some members of the public are left guessing as to why Andrew Hill’s comments immediately after the crash are not being used in evidence:

  • “I’m guessing that these statements were taken without a caution being given. The pilot has rights, as does any other defendant in a potential criminal investigation.”
  • “Your right. But “Unsolicited” comments made outside of caution can also be used too! Especially if there is admission of guilt or innocence.”

The general consensus from the public:

  • “What a shame that the ultimate truth cannot be heard.”
  • “Surprised the High Court haven’t allowed a viewing of the material to check it as it is relevant to the case(s) being investigated.”
  • “Awful decision…… any evidence withheld could effect the outcome of an inquest , or criminal trial. the police should have authority to gain any evidence required to get the truth of what happened in shoreham. the grieving families deserve to know the truth…” 

Even Andy McDonald, the Shadow Secretary for Transport, said:

  • “It is deeply concerning investigating police officers should be hindered in this way. They should have access to any materials necessary to bring justice to the families of those who tragically lost their lives. Far too often families find themselves in an uphill struggle to establish the facts of what happened to their loved ones.”

Andrew Hill – The Miracle Man

Mystery has surrounded the Shoreham air-show crash from the very out-set. Just how Andrew Hill miraculously survived the immense fire-ball without a cut or a graze is a miracle.

At the time the AAIB report said the aircraft broke into four main pieces which came to rest close together approximately 243m from the initial ground contact, in a shallow overgrown depression to the south of the A27.

The report goes on to say that investigators are not sure whether Mr Hill attempted to eject from the craft or was forcibly removed due to the significant impact. Investigators wrote: ‘During the initial part of the impact sequence the jettisonable aircraft canopy was released, landing in a tree close to the main aircraft wreckage. During the latter part of the impact sequence, both the pilot and his seat were thrown clear from the cockpit.’

Andrew Hill has been at the centre of the police investigation into the Shoreham Air-show disaster which claimed the lives of 11 men one year ago.

He spent weeks in an induced coma but miraculously survived and has since made a full recovery.

He was first spotted on his feet again last October when he was pictured walking in jeans and denim shirt, carrying a water bottle.

Police interviewed him under caution last December. He was not arrested. Then five months after the August 22 tragedy, images emerged of him driving a £40,000 Porsche Boxster.

Andrew Hill

Having already uncovered a cover-up involving Sussex Police, it comes as no surprise that they find themselves embroiled in another.

The country’s leading conspiracy researcher Chris Spivey has been vocal in his belief that the Shoreham air-show crash was a false flag event in the same league as the 7/7 London bombing, the Woolwich murder and the Paris attacks.

He said in his article “The Shoreham Plane Crash Part 1” dated 09 September 2015

Chris Spivey

“The Shoreham plane crash is without doubt the most easily pulled apart government hoax that I have investigated to date.

Indeed, it would seem that the more ambitious the hoaxes get, the more the script writers have to try and shore the old fanny up with the usual tell tale signs that point to a fraud having been committed – which is a bit of a Catch 22 situation for them really.

Mind you, it is no exaggeration to say that the Shoreham Flight Shite needed a lot of shoring up and as such every single indicator of a government hoax had to be brought into play… Or at least it did in their minds.

But all the same, having said that I also have to say that the hoax was a mighty ambitious project by anyones standards – especially going on their past Am-Dram efforts – and indeed, it must doubtlessly have taken an awful lot of planning as well as having been a logistical nightmare to set up.”

In light of Chris Spivey’s allegations that not everything is what it seems, I asked Sussex Police to comment on his allegations and this is how they responded:

Dear Matthew,

I write in connection with your request for information relating to Shoreham Air Show.

I can confirm your request has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested. 

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Sussex Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:   

(a) states that fact, 

(b) specifies the exemption in question; and 

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The exemptions applicable to the information refused are;

Section 30 – Investigations and proceedings conducted by the Public authority. 

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming or denying information is held is appropriate.

Overall Harm in Confirming or Denying that Information is held
Modern-day policing is intelligence led which is particularly pertinent with regard to any current investigation.  The National Intelligence Model is adhered to by all police forces across England and Wales.  It is a business process with an intention to provide focus to operational policing and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the resources applied to any problem.  It is dependant on a clear framework of analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem solving approach to law enforcement crime prevention techniques.  To confirm whether or not Sussex Police  has carried out a specific investigation  would undermine the ongoing operation..
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built.  The Police Service has a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those than plan to commit crime.  By confirming whether or not a specific line of enquiry has been used could directly influence the stages of that process, jeopardise current investigations, HM Coroner’s investigation, prejudice future law enforcement, the judicial process and any subsequent civil proceedings.
In order to fully investigate incidents it is vital that the police have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of offenders who have committed offences.

Section 30
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of the investigatory process and may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and reduce crime which could assist with the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, as all police investigations are publicly funded, confirmation that information is held would provide transparency with regard to the allocation of force budgets.
This in turn would highlight where police resources are being targeted and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent, particularly in the current economic climate.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held
Confirmation that information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing details of investigative activity.  This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect Sussex Police law enforcement capabilities.  Confirmation would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations. To disclose where these investigations are being undertaken to the world would seriously undermine the prevention or detection of crime and the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.
Balancing Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying whether information pertinent to this request exists.  The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve.  As part of that policing purpose, various tactical tools may be used to gather information relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any investigative activity and specifically current and ongoing investigations could weaken that process.
In addition any disclosure by Sussex Police that places an investigation at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in us.  Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information exists.
No inference can be drawn from this refusal that information is or isn’t held.
Yours sincerely
Roger Brace
FOI Officer 

Or in other words; its none of your business and we wouldn’t tell you anyway!

“The Shoreham plane crash is without doubt the most easily pulled apart government hoax that I have investigated to date.”

While Chris Spivey contends that the people who died that day were MI5 constructs and that the whole event was a staged event for reasons not yet fully understood; others like leading ufologist Richard Lennie and astrophotographer John Walson, pointed the blame to a UFO collision.

Sussex Police were quick to reply to the UFO crash theory by saying how “very grateful” they were for the information, but not so forthcoming when accused of being involved in a cover-up. (of which it appears they are becoming quite adapt in doing so.)

Make no mistakes, a cover-up is in full swing and everyone knows it.

Even local MP’s are calling for changes to the law after hearing that Sussex police were refused access to potentially crucial information about the cause of the Shoreham Airshow crash.

Brighton Pavilion MP and joint Leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas said: “This judgment appears to hinder a crucial police investigation into this tragic incident, and it could set a worrying precedent. We need an open justice system that best learns from the past and prevents tragedies like this occurring.”

While Portslade and Hove Labour MP, Peter Kyle said “We are testing the boundaries of this law but that shouldn’t prohibit giving the families of victims the justice they need. If they can’t sort this out then maybe the law needs to be re-examined.”

Unrelenting in his goal of covering up what actually happened that day, Justice Singh said allowing police access to the statements made by Andy Hill would cause a “serious and obvious chilling effect which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help prevent similar accidents.”

He also denied access to details of experiments and tests because the reports were likely to be made public in the AAIB’s final findings and because there was “no reason why the police could not themselves investigate”.

James Healy-Pratt, the head of aviation at Stewarts Law lawyer who is representing six victims’ families, welcomed the judgment as a “significant development” which he hoped would speed up the investigation.

He added: “There are no real surprises here and this is the expected result.”

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz from Sussex Police said the ruling would allow his team to progress the investigation, adding: “We understand legally this case is without precedent in England and Wales and we accept the reasons why our request has not been granted in full.”

“As we have said before, this is an extraordinarily complex investigation, but we remain committed to finding answers for the families and friends of those who died.”

The very fact the AAIB have with-held information which Sussex Police went to the High Court to release, tells us the power struggle which is going on behind the scenes. As the Queen herself once alluded to; there are dark forces at work in this country of which the public have little or no knowledge about.

In much the same way that six healthy fit young men do not drown in rip-tides off Camber Sands, so too, doesn’t a pilot survive unscathed from an infernal fire ball which disintegrates his plane and kills 11 men on the ground.

The AAIB know the truth but they aren’t telling us.

Be it a UFO collision or a false flag event; there is a cover-up in full swing regarding the Shoreham air-show crash and that’s a fact!

Further Reading:





The cracks are beginning to show and the compliant Sussex press are beginning to turn. No one likes to be taken for mugs; especially not reporters…

As the headline in the Uckfield News shouts:

Who actually the Independent columnist Observer is? He or she backs the Sussex Crime Panel as they challenge the Fraud Commissioner Katy Bourne over changes to local policing.


Katy Bourne was well and truly placed on the spot about changes to neighbourhood policing introduced this summer.

Truly Placed on the Spot!

This new “policing model” has seen PCSOs disappear from Uckfield and the effects of that can be seen in the High Street on an almost daily basis with pavement parking and no control over time limits for the reduced parking spaces.

The effects of Katy Bourne’s new Policing Model:

  • PCSOs disappear from Uckfield
  • Effects seen in the high street on an almost daily basis
  • Pavement parking
  • No control over time limits for the reduced parking spaces
  • Double yellow lines flouted with impunity
  • Motorists happy to dump cars and vans on the pavements
  • Damage caused
  • Potential hazards to pedestrians

It’s the same around the rest of the town with double yellow lines flouted with impunity and motorists happy to dump cars and vans on the pavements, not caring about the damage caused or the potential hazards to pedestrians,” a member of the Police and Crime Panel said.

Change in the type of crimes

When did you last see a police officer on foot in the High Street; other than on carnival night?” another member of the Police and Crime Panel asks.

When did you last see a police officer on foot in the High Street; other than on carnival night?”

A damning indictment of Katy Bourne’s promises to strengthen local policing.

Its shambolic!

One of Katy Bourne’s priorities is to “strengthen local policing” and members of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel questioned how these changes would help her meet that target.

Katy Bourne Off-Target

Members of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel question Katy Bourne’s ability to strengthen local policing.

We are told the new model has been designed to keep pace with a change in the types of crimes now being committed in Sussex.

Katy Bourne said “the new system needs time to bed in and is only a few weeks old.”

  • Needs time to bed in and is only a few weeks old.”
  • Danger to link between public and police

Local policing is the bedrock on British policing and Sussex Police and the crime panel is correct to be concerned about the dangers of the link between the public and residents being broken.

Link between public and residents being broken.

Ms Bourne was also challenged about the target time for answering 101 calls being totally missed and the information and data provided on her website.

The information and data provided on her website.”

The crime panel’s job is to support the work of the commissioner and hold her to account.

Even the Independent columnist Observer remarks:

A bit more “holding her to account” would not go amiss.”



Sussex Police began its transformation of local policing this summer with a reduction to the number of PCSOs and changes to their role.

The new model is said to have been designed to keep pace with a change in the types of crime being committed in Sussex.

But members of the panel questioned Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne about the effectiveness of the changes and how they fit in with her own priority to strengthen local policing.

Many members spoke of concerns within their communities that the new model of policing would result in an increase in antisocial behaviour and break the link between residents and the police force,”

Chairman Cllr Brad Watson said after Friday’s meeting (September 23, 2016)

With strengthening local policing a priority for Mrs Bourne, members were concerned that this new model would not help her achieve this. The role of enhanced mobile technology in strengthening local policing needs to be more fully demonstrated to residents.”

Members asked for assurances that:

  • the changes would not have a negative impact on their communities,
  • that the public could continue to have confidence in the police and
  • that the effectiveness of new model is properly and regularly assessed.

I am aware of concerns and will continue to scrutinise,”

I am aware of concerns and will continue to scrutinise, but the new model has only just started to be rolled out, it has been operational barely two months and we need to give it time to bed in,” Katy Bourne fraud commissioner told the panel.

Fraud Commissioner Katy Bourne

I am confident the new policing model is where it should be right now and I will continue to scrutinise it and continue to challenge the chief constable around this.”

Concerns were also raised about the performance of Sussex Police when dealing with non-emergency calls to 101.  Panel members were told that 43 per cent of calls to 101 were answered within the force’s self-imposed 60 seconds target.

Call handling – Target’s Totally Missed…

  • Katy Bourne said, “the average wait for calls to 101 to be answered was three minutes and 37 seconds.”
  • Only 3mins 37 secs to answer a non emergency call from Sussex Police,” boasts Katy Bourne.

Shambolic and Shameful

Considering an emergency call in answered within 10 seconds, why on Earth is it taking so much to answer 101 calls?

I have told the chief constable that if the target is not working he needs to look at what it is that you are expecting of your staff in call handling,” said Mrs Bourne.

People calling 101 want to know that their call will be handled and dealt with. For me it is about the public being happy with the service they receive.”

For me it is about the public being happy with the service they receive.”

Serial Business Woman

Serial business builder and ex-Pole Dance instructor Katy Bourne said , “there were a number of measures being put in place to try to improve the waiting time for those calling 101 and that performance was being kept under constant review by the force.”

Budget update

The panel received a budget update in which they were told savings for Sussex Police in the period until 2021 remained at £48.2million.

They were told that progress was being made but that the situation was being constantly reviewed.


Concluding the meeting, chairman Cllr Watson asked the commissioner to assess the information and data she provided on her website in respect of significant decisions she had made, this being less comprehensive than that provided by other commissioners.

Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel Cllr Watson concludes Katy Bourne is with-holding information and data, which other Crime Commissioners provide to their own Police and Crime Panels.

Katy Bourne is with-holding information and data

Speaking after the meeting Cllr Watson said: “The panel exists to support the work of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and to hold her to account.  It was clear from the meeting that members felt they needed more information and clearer data from the commissioner in order to effectively challenge the decisions that are being made.”

  • The panel exists to support the work of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and to hold her to account.

    (A career ending statement that nails the stake deep into the heart of any future career in politics. For the first time a panel of councillors acknowledge their responsibility to “hold her to account.”)

  • Members felt they needed more information and clearer data from the commissioner in order to effectively challenge the decisions that are being made

(Accusing Katy Bourne of holding back on information which the members need to determine whether she’s been telling the truth.)

To effectively challenge the decisions that are being made”

I’m sure the commissioner will consider the comments made and continue to provide as much relevant data to the panel as possible.”


Final Warning by Cllr Watson to FCC Katy Bourne

Katy Bourne cannot survive for much longer.