Blogger in Need – A Special Appeal by Matt Taylor

No one likes to be silenced, ignored and put into a corner!

I’ve been blogging since 2012 and across my three top blog platforms, I’ve attracted over 3 million views, having posted about 2,000 blogs. A top writer in the alternative media, I’m making my own contribution in bringing the sick and evil regime which controls our lives, to it’s knees.

Which brings me to my Blogger in Need Appeal

Sussex Police in conjunction with Katy Bourne, their Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) have banned my blog on grounds of harassment.


Nothing could be further from the truth

It all started when I called Katy Bourne a liar. Which is my God given right to do so, considering on the day before the 2016 PCC election she wrote on a sponsored Facebook post; that she’s never “claimed for expenses during her term in office.”

I know its a blatant lie because her office publicly published her expense claims which shows that she had indeed claimed expenses while during her term in office.

What would you have done?

Katy Bourne is paid £85,000 a year to hold the Chief Constable to account, to set the police priorities and to administer a £250 million budget. Can she be trusted with this immense responsibility while she lies about £385 worth of expenses?

According to the official definition of harassment, anyone can call another person a liar if;

  1. Its the truth

  2. Its a honest opinion

  3. Its exposing a crime

I tick all these boxes…

Its the truth, so much so that the Independent Police Complaint’s Commission (IPCC) have launched a criminal investigation into Katy Bourne, which is on-going and is expected to report it’s findings soon.

Its in my honest opinion because when I first discovered Katy Bourne had claimed expenses, (after promising the public she wouldn’t), I wrote her an email highlighting this error, to which she acknowledged her “error” and refunded a £322 train fare to Birmingham.

I’m exposing a crime, because as the IPCC investigation acknowledges; to make a false statement to influence a PCC election is a criminal breach of s106 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983.

As I’ve made clear on many occasions. I have not harassed anyone. I have simply delivered an extra layer of public scrutiny, which Katy Bourne welcomed when she pledged her Oath of Office.

This isn’t about me, its about victims of police crime

Since taking on the mantle of Shadow Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (SSPCC) following the election of Katy Bourne in 2012, many people have approached me with their stories of police corruption; which have all been chronicled and reported on the SSPCC blog platform.

  • David Joe Neilson; who remains in hiding because he’s too scared to return home in fear he’s killed.
  • John Lenard Walson; whose historical child-abuse has been covered-up by Sussex Police, which means he cannot claim the compensation he’s rightly entitled to.
  • Julliette; who Sussex Police turned their back on, and lost her family home of 20 years, due to the fraudulent actions of her dead ex husband.
  • Brian Setchfield; who witnessed a possible murder at a Hasting police station, but who has since been ignored when making enquires into the police crimes committed on that day.
  • John Paterson; jailed for 6 weeks at Lewes Prison for exposing police brutality after being arrested, assaulted and jailed for no legal reason.


The fact that my blog has been banned, means that these stories have been banned too.

My SSPCC blog was originally banned in July 2016; but I successfully argued for it to be reinstated due to the IPCC investigation, which vindicated my claims Bourne lied to the public.

Now rather than approach me personally, Bourne, the Police and Mark Streater (her number one) prefer to complain about me behind my back, and use more devious means to silence me.


You wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the 24 cases of misconduct Streater investigated in relation to Sussex Police; he found all 24 cases to be ‘unsubstantiated,’ requiring no further action.

I think he banned my SSPCC blog in July 2016 because he knew the IPCC were about to launch an investigation, and the publicity their announcement would bring, would entice the public to Google Katy Bourne, which would show up the hundreds of blogs I’ve written about her; and as a result would cut short her fledging career.
In-fact since the announcement was made by the IPCC, dozens of news outlets reported on it, including the BBC, Sky News and the Police Oracle; not including the dozens of Sussex based newspapers and on-line magazines.
Its interesting to note, that many of these articles have now been removed. As one member of the public points out:
All and any mention of Katy Bourne has been wiped clean from the UK Blasting News platform, leaving the BBC the only one whose article remains.
A complaint that the electorate was misled over the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s expenses is being investigated by the police watchdog.

Since getting my blog back up and running, I thought I’d won and that it’ll be the end of it…

Hence I posted a further three blogs calling into question the involvement of Sussex Police in the 2015 Shoreham air-show crash and the 2016 Camber Sands tragedy.


While some people, like Andy Morton for example thinks it’s best to ‘simply’ label me a ‘crackpot conspiracists’ and deny me the ‘oxygen of publicity’; the truth remains that I’m flagging up pertinent and important issues.

Using underhand techniques to silence me will back fire.

Sussex Police have banned a blog on grounds of harassment against Katy Bourne, the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (SPCC)
I need everyone who reads this to share it, please. We need to show Sussex Police that banning any blog (which criticises their actions) is not acceptable.
Once we lose our freedom of speech and expression, then we have lost our Soul. Our essence of being and our reason for being.
I blog about Katy Bourne and Sussex Police because I am seeing glaring discrepancies in what they do and say; which other journalists aren’t picking up on.
I still find it unbelievable that I’m the only person in Sussex to pick up on her expenses discrepancy.  The so-called Fourth Estate is failing in it’s duty to hold elected officials to account.
  • First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.
  • Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
  • Then they came for the blogger, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a blogger.
  • Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



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.


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:



Appeal against the removal of SSPCC Blog.

Dear Google Blogger Team,

On the 12 July 2016 you removed my blog, from the internet, citing HARASSMENT as the reason for doing so.

I am unable to contact you directly concerning this matter because I can’t find an email in which I can contact you. I have decided to make this appeal public because I know representatives from Google regularly monitor my blogs and trust that this appeal reaches the appropriate person(s) and department.

Screenshot from Live Traffic Feed showing views from Mountain View, California


My blog has been active since 2012, in which I’ve written hundreds of articles about Sussex Police and the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne, of which the blog was created to hold to account, adding an extra layer of public scrutiny and accountability. I am immensely proud of the work and effort I’ve put into this blog since 2012, I believe I am doing a worth while job which is in the public interest.

Once I discovered you had removed my blog I appealed your decision and on the 22 July received the reply as below:


But within moments, another message was delivered contrary to the above:


At no point has anyone in Google’s Blogger Team informed me of who or whom I have alleged to have HARASSED…

Google HQ/Mountain View, California

I can only assume that Mark Streater from the Office of Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (OSPCC) was the person who made the complaint and that the allegation of HARSSMENT was against the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (SPCC) Katy Bourne.


I assume this because following a Freedom of Information request to the OSPCC about certain Youtube videos being removed from public view, it was revealed that Mark Streater was the person who made the complaint.

Through the lack of information from The Google Blogger Team, I am left to assume the allegation of HARASSMENT was made based on the many articles in which I call Katy Bourne a liar.

Calling Katy Bourne a liar is not HARASSMENT; its the truth and in the public interest to do so.

Katy Bourne has provably been caught out lying during the 2016 PCC elections about her expenses claims, and this has been vindicated and confirmed by both Sussex Police and the Crime Panel, by referring my complaint against her to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for further investigation.

The following article, (which I would have published on BlogSpot, but am now forced to publish on your rival’s blog place,) confirms what I’ve written above.

News-Flash Katy Bourne SPCC in serious trouble with the IPCC

Calling Katy Bourne a liar is not HARASSMENT, as confirmed by Sussex Police and the Sussex Crime Panel (set up to hold Katy Bourne to account).

By law the exceptions of HARASSMENT are three-fold:
1; Honest opinion.
2; The truth.
3, A matter of public interest.

I have proved to the satisfaction of Sussex Police and the Sussex Crime Panel that I am exempt from any defamation and harassment laws, because I meet all three exceptions of the defamation and harassment Laws.

Whoever complained to you citing HARASSMENT did so to cover-up the FACT that Katy Bourne lied during the PCC elections about her expenses. In theory Google could be prosecuted for covering up a crime.

You have made a serious error in removing my blog and I appeal you to reinstate the blog, as you originally agreed to do on the 22 July 2016.

You can contact me over this matter by emailing me directly at

I look forward to a response by The Blogger Team…

Yours Sincerely,

Matthew Taylor


I’ve won the Moral Battle


Simply watch Katy Bourne do the YMCA with Sussex Police at Gay Pride without a care in the world.

But behind the smiles and joviality resides a scared and petrified Police and Crime Commissioner, who knows that a neighbouring police force could turn up at any moment and arrest her for misconduct in office.

Alongside Brian Setchfield and John Paterson, we are holding the moral high ground and we’ve beat them hands down.

Let’s get real for a moment.

If someone called you a LIAR in public; what would you do?

Speaking for myself, I’d confront the person and demand they justify their allegation.

Never once has either Giles York, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police or Katy Bourne, the Police and Crime Commissioner of Sussex Police ever challenged me on my public claims they are liars, frauds and cheats.

Who wins the moral battle? They who shout the truth or they who remain silent to hide their lies?

With truth as my weapon, my hammer and sword, I’ve demonstrated serious failure, incompetence and criminality within the ranks of Sussex Police and NEVER once have Giles York of Katy Bourne challenged me.

Katy Bourne would rather get her lover Mark Streater (the real Police and Crime Commissioner) to complain to Youtube, Google and UK Blasting News to get all information of Katy Bourne’s crimes wiped from the internet.

Who has won the moral battle? Who stands on the higher moral ground?

Katy Bourne hides behind the power of 10 Downing Street to maintain the status quo. The status quo is the continuing theft of government money, with a corrupt police force failing to protect and serve the people of Sussex.

Both Giles York and Katy Bourne have shamed themselves.

Katy Bourne surrounds herself with sycophantic admirers who gladly turn a blind eye to her failures because in doing so, they are rewarded and benefit from the same corruption which Katy Bourne protects and maintains.

hate campaign

Both Sussex Police and Katy Bourne are running scared and are petrified of the information I’m spreading reaching a wider audience.

The only reason they are fighting back is because their backs are against the walls and like rats trapped in the same position, are bearing their gnashes, readying themselves to pounce forward in self defence.

I don’t hide behind anyone.

  • William Mills, Editor of
  • Mike Gilson, Editor of The Argus newspaper
  • Frank le Duc, Presenter of Latest TV’s The Vote
  • Tim Ridgway, Editor of News at Latest TV
  • Bill Smith, Owner and Founder of Latest TV
  • Emily Walker, Chief Reporter at The Argus newspaper
  • Rachel Millard, Crime Reporter at The Argus Newspaper
  • Ivor Gaber, Professor of Journalism from the University of Sussex
  • Dave Day, Chairman of the Golden Lion Group
  • Giles York, Sussex Police Chief Constable
  • Martin Richards, Ex Sussex Police Chief Constable
  • Katy Bourne, Sussex Police Crime Commissioner
  • Mark Streater, the Real Sussex Police Crime Commissioner
  • Peter James, world famous crime writer
  • Trevor Leggo, Chairman of Sussex Association of Local Councils (SALC)

All these people mentioned above know me personally; never once have I shied away from telling them the truth (as I see it).

While they may say differently behind closed doors, I have always been treated with respect and kindness by them all during face to face meetings and discussions.

These leading figures within the Sussex high-life know my position on corruption and know that I can back up every allegation, with evidence.

No one ever challenges me; no one says I’m wrong.

The only coward in the pack is Mark Streater, who goes behind my back and wins influence with Youtube, Google and UK Blasting News, because his lover Katy Bourne is now protected by the influence of 10 Downing Street.

Read more: Mark Streater is a Coward

Mark Streater once asked me “why I do it?” To which I honestly answered, “I’m doing it to bust open corruption in Sussex Police and become the Sussex Police Crime Commissioner on the back of the publicity and recognition.”

Martin Richard once asked me “when will it stop?” To which I honesty replied, “Never or until I become the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner.”

The End is Nigh…

Katy Bourne’s world is about to come crashing down because she’s being sued for elderly abuse.

Corruption, failure and incompetence is never sustainable. At some point lies are exposed and criminality brought to book.

Katy Bourne has been named in an elderly abuse case and once the case reaches the courts, her career is over, once and for all.

Katy Bourne has been referred to the IPCC by the very Police force she is meant to hold to account. She has even been referred to the IPCC by the Police Crime Panel (her critical friends) who are legally tasked with holding her to account.

News Flash – Katy Bourne SPCC in “serious” trouble with the IPCC

(The Police Crime Panel – They get paid for doing it, while I’ve done it for nothing.)

In all probability, Katy Bourne will be arrested and convicted of misconduct in office and will serve a hefty term in prison.

Vendetta against Sussex Police


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.

Peter James & Rachel Millard – The Argus

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.

Read more:

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 – 

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:

  • Sussex Police are guilty of a cover-up of the 1996 Katrina Taylor murder in Brighton
  • Ex Chief Constable Martin Richards was allowed to retire early to escape misconduct charges
  • That various staff within Sussex Police regularly use the services of prostitutes in light of the revelation that sacked Sussex Police Inspector often rang up to a dozen prostitutes in an hour on behalf of his colleagues, including Giles York
  • Katy Bourne knowingly lied about her expenses during the 2016 PCC election
  • Katy Bourne has broken her oath of office
  • Katy Bourne and mark Streater has colluded to abuse the Human Right’s of her political opponent
  • Sussex Police knowingly work with criminals for their own illegal and nefarious ends




This is the biggest scandal to ever hit Sussex and Sussex Police.

Championed by Wayne Smith, a horror story of such gigantic proportions is only now coming to light, which in it’s criminal overshadows every case of corruption ever levelled against the Conservative Party and Sussex Police.

First coming to the public attention in a Daily Mail article written by Steve Doughty published on 26 October 2012, we were told that a senior consultant called Professor Patrick Pullicino, was claiming NHS doctors were prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they were difficult to manage or to free up beds.

Using the controversial ‘Liverpool Care Pathway,’ (LCP) (in effect the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly), 130,000 patients in the NHS were murdered.

The article quotes Professor Patrick Pullicino to have said, “Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”


Bringing the scandal up to date and closer to home, Wayne Smith claims his own father was murdered while at a St Wilfrids Hospice in Chichester using the LCP model.

He says, “It’s an on-going thing with these Hospices. They were getting payments from the Government to put patients on the LIVERPOOL CARE PATHWAY.”

Having asked Freedom of Information requests, Wayne Smith has learnt the death rates at various Sussex based hospices are “through the roof.”

Wayne Smith:

“So far I have one hospice with 8,000 unexplained deaths. Average death rate for a 14 bed Hospice should be around 170 pa. Currently in the mid 400’s (over double the average). Another with 250 in 2011 & 300 in 2012 and another with over 300 in 2010.”

Using the same drugs used in executions in the USA, by lethal injection, PROPOFOL & MIDAZOLAM are currently being used, and the murder weapon of choice.

Wayne Smith makes the heart breaking claim, “St Wilfrid’s Hospice Chichester gave my father GLYCOPYRRONIUM and Prescribed MIDAZOLAM. He died 36 hours later..”

The list of drugs they use to end life.


Having collected evidence worthy enough of starting a murder investigation, Wayne Smith has contacted Sussex Police and the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne, pleading with them to start an investigation.

As of yet, NOTHING.

“Unfortunately there has been a massive cover up to protect St Wilfrid’s Hospice Chichester.”


Further damning Sussex Police and putting the Chief Constable under further public attention, Wayne Smith makes his feelings of an orchestrated police cover up perfectly clear.

“Sussex Police are involved in this cover up. I have given them all of the information and they refuse to investigate potentially 8,000 unexplained deaths.”

It isn’t just a police cover up; as Wayne Smith continues:

“Also West Sussex County Council who license this hospice have refused to investigate.”


Just as the Prime Minister David Cameron conceded that under the Conservative Government, child-abuse is now being committed on an “Industrial Scale,” we now find out that the murder of our elderly is also being carried out on an industrial scale.

Should we even be surprised? Taking into account the way they treated the disabled and the vulnerable, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a heartless, criminal Conservative party would twist and manipulate the guide-lines of the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway,’ to unburden the Taxpayers of costly elderly care, to free NHS/hospice beds and lower the nation’s pension bill.


What are you going to do about it?

Wayne Smith has been “bashing everyone about it,” and I’ve produced a mini film and have written an amateurish article about it.

What about you?

This involves and touches everyone. This is about our elderly being murdered by the state.

Are both Wayne Smith and I just making “noise” or is this “news?”


Subject: Response to Information Request CQC IAT 1516 0931
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:05:29 +0000

13 April 2016

Ref: CQC IAT 1516 0931

Dear Mr Smith

I write in response to your correspondence dated 23 March 2016 in which you requested recorded information from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Information Requested:

“Please provide me with the number of death notifications submitted by St Barnabas House, Worthing 20 beds. Since 1 October 2010 to the Care Quality Commission.”

The Information Access team has now coordinated a response to your request and we are able to confirm that CQC does hold recorded information in relation to this matter.

All care providers must notify us about certain changes, events and incidents affecting their service or the people who use it.  These are known as Statutory Notifications.

You can read guidance on Statutory Notifications on the CQC website at:

In accordance with regulation 16 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, care providers must notify CQC of the death of any person who uses the care service.

The intention of this regulation is to ensure that CQC is notified of the deaths of people who use services so that, where needed, CQC can take follow-up action.

Notifications about deaths must be sent to CQC without delay.

The table below details the number of notifications CQC has received reporting a death for the location you have specified. The period of time this data covers is 1 October 2010 – 7 April 2016.

Year Number of Notifications
2010 59
2011 487
2012 606
2013 312
2014 268
2015 266
2016 76

Care should be taken with regards to any potential comparisons of the data relating to the different locations. There are a number of factors that may influence the numbers of notifications relating to certain events that occur within locations of care.

I hope you find this response helpful.

CQC will always endeavour to provide high quality responses to requests for information and seek to be as helpful as possible. We would therefore appreciate if you can complete our online feedback form by visiting the following link:

Any information you provide will be held securely and only used for the purposes of improving the Information Rights service that CQC provides.

Kind regards

Amy Stanley

Information Access Officer

Legal Services & Information Rights

Customer & Corporate Services Directorate