Detective Inspector 1272 Tanya Shotbolt of Bedfordshire police CID says labelling an innocent man a paedophile is a ‘low level offence’

Tanya Shotbolt may be de-sensitised to paedophilia as she appears to work in the child abuse team.

She will be privy to what paedophiles do and should know they are sick fucks with sexual interests in children.

Therefore, it stands to reason that labelling an innocent man a paedophile is grossly offensive.

After a costly Judicial Review at the taxpayer’s expense, Tanya Shotbot was tasked to review a decision made by Bedfordshire police, not to investigate George Vella for creating a malicious website labelling me and my wife paedophiles and referring to my wife as a serial killer.

The review was a remedy of the costly Judicial Review, and the Chief Constable agreed by a mutual consent order to review their flawed decision.

The Bedfordshire Chief Constable was put on notice of Contempt of Court proceedings for failing to abide by the signed High Court order, only then did Detective Cheif Inspectory Tilling task Tanya Shotbolt with the review.

In summary, Tanya Shotbolt reviewed the decision and made the following comments / admissions

  1. That she had not seen the evidence of the crime that was in the possession of the police.
  2. That she had a copy of an admission by George Vella that he purchased the malicious domain and website.
  3. That she made an assumption (in light of the above admission), that George Vella would deny creating the website
  4. She admitted that Vella had not been interviewed under caution
  5. She came to the conclusion that it was not reasonable to interview Vella under caution.

Tanya Shotbot, then deemed that no investigation would take place and the case was closed!

I wrote to Tanya Shotbolt and provided the evidence that was given to Lancashire police when it was first reported. Lancashire police reviewed the evidence, they determined it was a criminal offence contrary to the Malicious Communications Act 1988.  It was recorded as a crime and Lancashire police began an investigation (so they say).  After many seconds of investigation, Lancashire police closed the case, saying they could not identify the offender (even though Vella had made admissions). But, the point is, it was recorded as a crime on reviewing the evidence.

This was then reported to Bedfordshire police, who were provided with the same evidence, they too recorded it as a crime of MAlicious Communications, and confirmed that the suspect was George Vella, however, in a bizarre turn of events, Lancashire police directed Bedfordshire police to ‘close the case‘,  which Bedfordshire police did.

This is what was taken to Judicial Review (JR) at the High Court of London.  The JR was granted, and the High Court Judge said that not only should it be investigated, but the offence was prosecutable.

So, Bedfordshire conceded to review the decision, however, Tanya Shotbolt seemed to have done blindfolded, and a further contempt of court application is being considered as the review is not considered ‘proper’.

Since this time, and due to what can only be described as conspired corruption, a private prosecution application was made at Liverpool Magistrates Court for the charges of Malicious Communications against the Defendant, George Vella.

The District Judge reviewed the application which contained all of the evidence (yes, the evidence Tanya Shotbolt refused to consider), and the District Judge granted the application for a private prosecution against George Vella.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.