#paulclarke - and there's more..

More information on the Paul Clarke case, as it drip, drip, drips out.

The arresting officer has now said, regarding Clarke's visit to the police station to hand in the gun he discovered in his garden:

"Throughout this encounter Paul Clarke was calm, considered and respectful. It is clear to me now that he did come to the police station with the intention of surrendering the firearm to the police."

In spite of this, and in spite of having phoned the Chief Superintendent prior to arriving, Mr Clarke was promptly arrested, and the CPS decided to proceed with prosecution.

As was alleged yesterday, this was perhaps not the first time Mr Clarke had handed in a weapon at the police station.

A machete, planned for use by a vigilante gang in the very same Surrey village, was handed by the gang leader - 'an unnamed man' - to Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper in January of this year - the same Chief Superintendent 'phoned by Clarke regarding his most recent visit.

But is this relevant to the current case?

Well, as CF said yesterday:

"Doubtless [the police would] be extremely worried if they thought the sort of guy who could whip up a vigilante gang, and had a fucking machete, for Christs' sake, got access to any other weapons.

Doubtless, if he did, they might have reacted in a disproportionate manner. After all, fear, and particularly panic, can make anybody act very oddly.

Blogger and Liberal Conspiracy contributor Lee Griffin, tweeting as @Niaccurshi, who has been following the case online, questioning and interacting regularly, had the following point to make:

"It may be relevant if it explains police actions in avoiding HO [Home Office] Guidelines."

Indeed. A reason, if not an excuse, for what has happened.

More later..



banned said...

Def something stinkey happening here CF, keep up the good work.

Musings said...

Nice to see that someone is pursuing this, especially as the MSM has so diligently ignored it.

Just a pity that the link between the machete and this case is so tenuous, would be satisfying if your suspicions are correct.

Mr Rob said...

Pam Nash linked to the vigilante article 16th November on Steve Shark's blog
The vigilantes had said they were going to interrogate suspects "army style".

It is also worth remembering that we only have Paul Clarke's account in his statement of how the sawn-off came to be in his possession, and the time line involved in his handing it in. The prosecution had no need to challenge this statement to secure a guilty verdict;
Mr Clarke chose to excercise his right not to give evidence under oath and be cross-examined.
The court has indicated it would wish for Mr Clarke's case to be tested by his examination under oath at sentencing.

Jack of Kent said...

Do you have a source for the arresting officer's comment and for other things you mention?

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you're still on this... with the rest of the blogosphere going nuts over the CRU documents this is in danger of being forgotten.

Constantly Furious said...

@J of K.

I have a source. A source I personally trust. The source's information comes directly from a representative of an officially recognised body.

Vague, I know. But I can say no more.

Not to appear mysterious; purely because I will be given no further information if I do. And there is more.


Jack of Kent said...

I am always wary of verbatim quotes from court hearings, unless from court's own transcript (via recording or stenographer).

Would not even rely on lawyer's or journalist's note for an exact quote of more than, say, three or four word.

Constantly Furious said...

@J of K

Not sure the quote was from court proceedings.