Breaking News: Giles York is being blackmailed by a particular individual. More to follow…
Breaking News: Giles York is being blackmailed by a particular individual. More to follow…
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:
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:
The general consensus from the public:
Even Andy McDonald, the Shadow Secretary for Transport, said:
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.
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
“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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
Brighton’s Chief Reporter from The Argus newspaper, Emily Walker, has launched a scathing attack against ex Royal Military Policeman and independent parliamentary candidate Matt Taylor, for waging a vendetta against Sussex Police.
Having reported on Katy Bourne and cases of police corruption since 2012, Matt Taylor has become Katy Bourne’s greatest critic, who claims to be adding an extra layer of public scrutiny and accountability to elected PCC’s.
With all criticism of Katy Bourne being systematically wiped clean from the internet, Mark Streater, Katy Bourne’s reported lover and Chief Monitoring Officer, has made harassment and defamation complaints to Youtube, Google and UK Blasting News.
From being called a ‘fake,’ to a ‘fraud’ to a ‘liar,’ Matt Taylor has publicly called Katy Bourne a variety of defamatory names, but says he has done so because “its in the public interest that this information is made public.”
Emily Walker writes in disagreement, “The majority of what you said is libellous and cannot be substantiated.”
Whilst libel is a civilian matter; neither Katy Bourne or Sussex Police Chief Constable Giles York has ever commenced private civilian action against Matt Taylor for being publicly called ‘liars’ since 2012.
Having continuously and repeatedly made the claim that both Katy Bourne and Giles York have lied while in public office, Matt Taylor is under the impression that both Katy Bourne and Giles York acknowledge they have lied by not initiating libel proceedings against him.
Emily Walker continues, “As you now appear to be investigative journalist I am sure you now understand libel law well enough to see the legal issues of your claims.”
Matt Taylor says in response, “I respect all libel and slander laws and always present serious allegations and claims, with its matching evidence. The truth is on my side and no one can agree with the truth.”
Katy Bourne has recently come under fire for lying about her expenses during the second Police and Crime Commissioner elections in 2016.
The latest scandal to hit Katy Bourne and Giles York is the very serious allegation that Sussex Police officers aided and abetted fake baliffs in evicting a disabled woman and her family from their family home of 20 years.
Matt Taylor maintains he hasn’t broken any libel laws and has demonstrated evidence of his claims, by insisting his information has been sourced from the primary witness in the case.
He said, “The evidence is Juliette’s testimony. How can I be guilty of libel when she is happy to repeat her claims in a Court of Law.”
While Emily Walker counteracts, “Whilst I did feel that Juliet’s case warranted investigating to be sidetracked by your vendetta against Sussex Police without any evidence that they were complicit in this clouds the real issues affecting her.”
Accusing Matt Taylor of harassing The Argus staff, Emily Walker makes her distain of his unique investigative journalism, “As you now appear to be investigative journalist I am sure you now understand libel law well enough to see the legal issues of your claims. In your role as a journalist should I assume you are now dealing with Juliette’s story and we should stay out of it? There is no need for you to continue to harass other Argus staff about this story.”
Matt Taylor – Investigate Journalist – www.taylorservices.org.uk
Matt Taylor responds to the claim of vendetta against Sussex Police, Giles York and Katy Bourne, “I dispute that all my claims against Sussex Police are libellous. I take great steps in substantiating everything I claim with evidence.”
Matt Taylor continues to plead for Juliette’s case.
“Please don’t stay out of this story… Juliette and her family need you.
I’m just an amateur journalist picking up stories which people can’t get help from anywhere else.
Please don’t let my involvement in this matter, stop your own investigation.
I will back off and will stop harassing your staff (though I dispute I’m harassing them; I only sent a couple of emails which can be deleted in a moment. To accuse me of harassing Argus staff is a bit strong and you have no evidence to substantiate this libellous claim against me!)
Lets remain friends and not enemies.”
To which Emily Walker kindly replied:
“Ha, okay matt.
Technically if I dont publish the claim that you are harassing us then it can’t be libel. But the libel lecture’s over!
We can stay friends!”
Other claims by Matt Taylor include: