question of an illegal search warrant, burglary, criminal damage and criminal trespass

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

OPEN LETTER TO The Minister in charge of the police.

 

Constituency

Arundel and South Downs Conservative Association, The Old Town Hall, 38 High Street, Arundel, BN44 3YE

Tel: 01903 816880

Fax: 01903 810348

nick@nickherbert.com

 

I wish to draw it to the attention of the authorities that Guy Shorrock is corrupt and the fact he cannot be trusted to handle evidence in any case. Below are only some examples of how corrupt Shorrock is there is a lot more that I can supply.

 

 

 

For the attention of Paul Garfoot and Ian Lemon and the police in support of the fact that the police must in totality criminally investigate Guy Shorrock criminal activity.

 

 

Below is another example from many where Shorrock has matter of fact lied to the police in relation to a search warrant because he thought his confidential report highlighted below with my comments in red and the police video that conclusively affirms that Shorrock lied in his confidential report below would not be released into the public domain.

 

Please note that the matters mentioned in Shorrock’s confidential report below resulted in Shorrock being sued. The judgement is enclosed. I have the court transcripts of the court cases including the one in which a judge said Shorrock could not be believed. The court transcripts can be supplied on request.

 

Guy Shorrock confidential report is below with my comments in red and the vital parts of Shorrock’s report that proves he had lied to the police are highlighted in blue.

 

Confidential Report to Hampshire Police concerning the execution of a search warrant at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants on 19 January 2005

I am Guy Shorrock, a Senior Investigations Officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) based at their headquarters at Sandy in Bedfordshire. I have been employed as an Investigations Officer for over thirteen years, prior to which I was a Police Officer for over seven years with the Greater Manchester Police. The work of the Species Protection Department in which I am based is primarily concerned with gathering evidence of infringements of the legislation that protects wildlife in the United Kingdom, principally in relation to offences involving wild birds. The Department plays an advisory role, assisting the statutory agencies in their investigations, especially through the Police Wildlife Crime Officers' (WCO) network.

 

WHY DID Guy Shorrock leave the police force? I have been told he was asked to resign for interfering with evidence.

During the last 21 years, I estimate I have probably been involved with the execution of over 100 search warrants. [ALL THE SEARCH WARRANTS NEED INVESTIGATING] The large majority of these have been during the last 13 years in relation to wildlife offences, many of which have related to egg collecting enquiries. I currently possess probably more experience of egg collecting enquiries than any other person in the UK and have given expert evidence on this area of crime at court on numerous occasions. [PROVE THIS] The RSPB have been instrumental in assisting the statutory agencies to bring many convictions against egg collectors. Consequently, there is often some animosity during search warrants directed towards RSPB staff rather than the police officers actually responsible for executing the warrant. [PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THE RSPB BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TRUST THE RSPB DUE TO THE LIES OF THE PAST] The RSPB Investigations Section takes considerable care when speaking to the police about search warrants and routinely discusses the following areas: -

• Grounds for the warrant

• Relevant legislation

• Advice on items which should be named as sought

• A request for RSPB staff to be specifically named on the warrant.

[PROVE IT]

Whilst I am not aware of any legislation that specifically states that other persons authorised by the court have to be named on the warrant, the RSPB has always asked this to be done for clarity and in case of objections raised by occupiers.

[uNDER THE CODES OF PRACTISE OF THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT ONLY THE PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN ENTER THE PROPERY COVERED BY THE SEARCH WARRANT. GIVEN SHORROCK’S PAST AND HIS MANY CLAIMED SEARCH WARRANTS HE MUST KNOW THIS FACT]

In addition to assisting the police during warrants with advice on what may be relevant evidence in relation to an investigation the RSPB are also able to ensure that many items of property are not unnecessarily seized. This is of benefit to the occupier. [NAME ONE PERSON THAT WAS GLAD TO SEE SHORROCK HELPING TO RAID THEIR PROPERTY AS SHORROCK ONLY LOOKS FOR HIS OWN GOALS TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE SEE THE CASE R V BURDEN, R V Myatt, R V Canning and so on]

From 1996, the RSPB, later assisted by the police and the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit at NC1S, gathered a considerable amount of intelligence information on individuals believed to be travelling abroad to collect birds' eggs. Whilst the taking of these may have been illegal under the legislation of the country concerned, it was no offence to possess these eggs once brought back into the UK. This problem existed because of a failure by the UK government to properly transpose requirements of EU Regulations into UK law. This situation was rectified in July 2004, which meant possession of birds' eggs in the UK, which had been taken illegally in other EU member states, was now an offence. On the basis of this an operation was put together to execute warrants at the homes of three targets, two in Hampshire and a third in Cheshire. [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?]

Following considerable consultation with the police and CPS in both Hampshire and Cheshire, on the 4 January 2005 I sent an e-mail to Hampshire and Cheshire Police (enc). This contained the background information for the warrant application and advice about other issues. The information for the warrant application was fairly lengthy as I wanted to ensure any officer making an application would have all the background information should they be asked questions by the court. [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?]

At 05.55 hours on Wednesday the 19 January 2005, myself and a colleague attended at Winchester Police station for a briefing. The first part was undertaken by PC Geoff Culbertson and Sgt Louise Hubble, both officers seemed well prepared and organised. [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?] I then gave some additional guidance to the officers present about what to expect and the type of items sort. As a matter of routine, I asked Sgt Hubble if I could view the warrants. On examination of the two warrants I noted that on the one for the address of Marshall that the RSPB were not specifically named on the warrant, though an identical warrant for the other Hampshire address had the RSPB named. Sgt Hubble stated she had applied for the warrants and had specifically asked the court for authority for RSPB officers to assist with the search warrants and that this had been granted. It seemed clear this was a minor clerical error by the court. [WHY WAS IT CLEAR TO SHORROCK THAT IT WAS JUST A MINOR CLERICAL ERROR? WHY DID SHORROCK CONTINUE ON THE RAID WHEN HE KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT? WHY DID THE POLICE ALLOW SHORROCK TO GO ON THE SEARCH GIVEN THE FACTS?] There was some discussion as to whether it would be worth contacting a Justice of the Peace in relation to this, but as three simultaneous warrants were planned there was insufficient time for this to be done. In the circumstances, as the officer who had made the application for the warrants was present and could clearly confirm the court had given authority for RSPR to assist, it seemed a reasonable course of action to continue as planned. If it had not been possible to consult with the officer who had taken out the warrant, I would not have entered the premises without the consent of the occupier. [ONLY PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN USE THE SEARCH WARRANT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY. RULES ARE NOT MADE TO BE BROKEN BY GUY SHORROCK AS IT SUITS HIM EVEN THOUGH HE IGNORES THE RULES WHEN IT DOES NOT SUIT HIM]

The officers were split into two teams. I was in the team for the address of a Mr Marshall at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants. SP11 7DY. Officers on this team were Sgt Hubble, PC 23615 Andrews, PC 2098 Sard, PC 3331 Mills and PC 3435 Chandler. The warrant was executed at approximately 07.30 hours. There was a female at the address who stated she had recently started lodging at the premises and had no contact details for Mr Marshall. The nature of the warrant was outlined to the occupier and I was not aware of any objections raised about my presence. Two officers spoke to her at some length in an upstairs room (I was not present during this) but she was apparently not able to provide any details of Mr Marshall's whereabouts.

The loft was searched, I believe only one or two officers may have entered the loft. I was not aware of any damage being caused and heard no reference made by any of the officers to any sort of damage relating to the search of this area. The rear ground floor room was locked and the key appeared to be in the lock from the other side. I assisted with an attempt to dismantle the front of the lock and to try and push the key out onto a piece of newspaper pushed under the door but this was not possible [WHY DID SHORROCK GET INVOLVED IN SMASHING DOWN A DOOR WHEN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM AND WHEN HE HAD NO RIGHT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE FIRST

[Alex Brown 7]

Boring yet again, do you never give up!

[Catcher 1 639]

Boring yet again, do you never give up!

 

 

I think D C.LLB is right.We should never give in to these Give some little prick a bit of power and it go.s to there head.Seen it happen first hand.Maybe you would change your mind if it happened to you.

[Alex Brown 7]

Boring yet again, do you never give up!

 

 

I think D C.LLB is right.We should never give in to these Give some little prick a bit of power and it go.s to there head.Seen it happen first hand.Maybe you would change your mind if it happened to you.

 

Had it happen to me, however you've got to remember Derek was convicted of a wild life crime involving BOP, and surprisingly Mr Shorrock was involved....Sour Grapes? And I would agree giving a little prick to much power is dangerous...however I would never give Derek any power

 

At the end of the day, Derek keeps shouting about this rubbish but surprisingly nothing ever seems to end up with either him proving his innocence or Mr Shorrocks ever ending up in court...Strange I think not. Derek was as guilty as sin and thinks all this bluff and nonsense will prove his accusations..NO WAY!

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Boring yet again, do you never give up!

 

 

I think D C.LLB is right.We should never give in to these Give some little prick a bit of power and it go.s to there head.Seen it happen first hand.Maybe you would change your mind if it happened to you.

 

Had it happen to me, however you've got to remember Derek was convicted of a wild life crime involving BOP, and surprisingly Mr Shorrock was involved....Sour Grapes? And I would agree giving a little prick to much power is dangerous...however I would never give Derek any power

 

At the end of the day, Derek keeps shouting about this rubbish but surprisingly nothing ever seems to end up with either him proving his innocence or Mr Shorrocks ever ending up in court...Strange I think not. Derek was as guilty as sin and thinks all this bluff and nonsense will prove his accusations..NO WAY!

Give me time, I am working on it. There is things going on behind the scenes.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

The room was about four metres square and fairly untidy. There was furniture in the room including a desk, and various items stored on shelves and on the floor. It did not appear to be being used as any sort of living space but more likely as storage and an office area. The officers present started to search this room to the left of the door and proceeded around the room in a methodical fashion. A number of items were brought to my attention and I gave advice on the relevance of items to the enquiry. I gave some assistance with the physical searching of the property, this was mainly confined to looking through items passed to me by the police. This is a normal level of involvement for the warrants I assist with. I was wearing a pair of disposable gloves, this is again standard practice [iS THIS TRUE, AS ALL THE OTHER VIDEOS THAT I HAVE SEEN SHORROCK WAS NOT WEARING GLOVES?] to protect my hands and reduce the chances of contaminating items that may be needed for fingerprint examination. I also helped with putting back some of the items into the areas from where they had been found. The room was generally untidy with a numerous documents on surfaces and in drawers. Whilst it is never possible to put items back in exactly the same position as found, it was abundantly clear to myself the officers were being responsible and making efforts to ensure any items examined were being returned to the same area from where they were found. I did not get the impression that any real disruption was being caused to the contents of the room. In fact, in some areas of the room, the replacing of items appeared to constitute some tidying of the room. [THIS IS NOT WHAT THE POLICE VIDEO SHOWS THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON YOU TUBE]

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

PLACE? WHY IS SHORROCK IN CONTROL INSTEAD OF THE POLICE? SHORROCK AS USUAL HAD TAKEN CONTROL WHEN HE SHOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL]

 

As Mr Marshall could not be contacted, and no key could be located, this was forced at around 08.35 hours. [YOU MEAN SMASHED OPEN, SEE YOU TUBE!]

 

The room was about four metres square and fairly untidy. There was furniture in the room including a desk, and various items stored on shelves and on the floor. It did not appear to be being used as any sort of living space but more likely as storage and an office area. The officers present started to search this room to the left of the door and proceeded around the room in a methodical fashion. A number of items were brought to my attention and I gave advice on the relevance of items to the enquiry. I gave some assistance with the physical searching of the property, this was mainly confined to looking through items passed to me by the police. This is a normal level of involvement for the warrants I assist with. I was wearing a pair of disposable gloves, this is again standard practice [iS THIS TRUE, AS ALL THE OTHER VIDEOS THAT I HAVE SEEN SHORROCK WAS NOT WEARING GLOVES?] to protect my hands and reduce the chances of contaminating items that may be needed for fingerprint examination. I also helped with putting back some of the items into the areas from where they had been found. The room was generally untidy with a numerous documents on surfaces and in drawers. Whilst it is never possible to put items back in exactly the same position as found, it was abundantly clear to myself the officers were being responsible and making efforts to ensure any items examined were being returned to the same area from where they were found. I did not get the impression that any real disruption was being caused to the contents of the room. In fact, in some areas of the room, the replacing of items appeared to constitute some tidying of the room. [THIS IS NOT WHAT THE POLICE VIDEO SHOWS THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON YOU TUBE]

 

During the warrant, Mr Marshall arrived, I gather he had been phoned by the female lodger despite her claims of having no contact number. He appeared angry and aggressive. I always consider this is partly to be expected in the circumstances and let the police speak with him to outline the nature of the warrant. As Mr Marshall entered the rear ground floor room he stormed across towards me with his arms raised. I Avoided eye contact and quietly continued what I was doing. A female police officer did an excellent job of calming Mr Marshall down and his behaviour, though a little erratic at times, was fairly reasonable after this point. He did not ask me to leave or stop what I was doing at any point [confirmed by the police video that has been put on you tube to show Shorrock has lied to the police you will notice on the police video from 9.29 am that Chris Marshall ordered Shorrock off his property as Shorrock was not named on the search warrant. This is matter of fact and clear proof Shorrock is a liar and cannot be trusted by the police, moreover there needs to be a police investigation into all of the complaints made about Shorrock over the years, see you tube for conclusive proof of Shorrock’s lying to the police].

 

 

 

At one point, he asked why the police were seizing a particular item and I outlined that it was based on advice I had given to the police, Mr Marshall seemed satisfied with this explanation. [DID HE SEEM SATISFIED, I SUGGESTED GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDECE HE WAS NOT SATISFIED] Mr Marshall did complain about the mess being caused, but having been present throughout the search of this room I struggled to understand what 'mess' he was actually referring to. Mr [VIEW THE VIDEO AND YOU WILL SEE WHY CHRIS MARSHALL WAS UPSET AT THE WAY HIS BUSINNES DOCUMENTS WERE BEING MIXED UP]

Marshall did ask on two occasions a rather unusual question of why we had not been to the address previously. This tended to suggest he thought a warrant was likely to be executed at some stage. Mr Marshall also denied having another residence claiming to be living in B&B accommodation.

I was aware that two vehicles outside were checked but I was not involved in a search of these. Other than the minor damage to the door of the rear ground floor room, I was not aware of any other damage being caused. [‘MINOR DAMAGE’ THIS IS NOT TRUE THE DOOR WAS DISTROYED AND THE FRAME WAS NEARLY KICKED FROM THE WALL, SEE THE POLICE VIDEO FOR PROOF]

The warrant concluded at 10.53 hours and I returned to Andover and then Winchester Police Station for a de-briefing and to sort out exhibits. I took away a number of items for further examination.

The items seized from Marshall, whilst offering some corroboration with the original intelligence, were not evidence of specific offences and I returned these to Hampshire Police. [THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED] The items seized from the other two suspects in the enquiry, provide considerable corroboration of the original intelligence. It is my professional opinion that all the intelligence gathered for the search warrants is accurate and that Mr Marshall is likely to hold an illegal egg collection at some location. I believe Mr Marshall probably uses the Edgeways address as a business and mailing address to reduce the chances of his own residence being located. [GIVEN THE FACTS WHAT SHORROCK HAS JUST SAID IS CLEARLY WRONG AND AN OUTRAGUS COMMENT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED]

 

Mr Marshall is also heavily involved with a group called the Jourdain Society, and I believe he is the current chairman. The members of this group are specifically interested in the nests, eggs and breeding behaviour of wild birds. It is no secret that several current and former members of this society are convicted egg collectors and several, including the other two individuals subject of this enquiry, are suspected to be involved in the illegal taking of eggs. In 1993, the RSPB instigated and assisted the Wiltshire Police with an investigation into the Society, which led to the conviction of six individuals. Understandably, the RSPB is not popular with this group. [WHAT HAS THE AFORESAID GOT TO DO WITH TARGETING CHRIS MARSHALL AND THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE?]

Having assisted the police with a large number of search warrants I considered all the officers to have behaved professionally and that their conduct and behaviour was exemplary throughout. After the conclusion of the warrant, I did in fact mention to Sgt Hubble that I had been impressed with the enthusiasm and efforts of all the officers present and asked if she would pass on the thanks of the RSPB [WELL SHORROCK WOULD SAY THAT THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS A DISGRACE AND CRIMINALLY WRONG].

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Guy Shorrock

Senior Investigations Officer

23.03.05

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Constituency

Arundel and South Downs Conservative Association, The Old Town Hall, 38 High Street, Arundel, BN44 3YE

Tel: 01903 816880

Fax: 01903 810348

nick@nickherbert.com

 

I wish to draw it to the attention of the authorities that Guy Shorrock is corrupt and the fact he cannot be trusted to handle evidence in any case. Below are only some examples of how corrupt Shorrock is there is a lot more that I can supply.

 

 

 

For the attention of Paul Garfoot and Ian Lemon and the police in support of the fact that the police must in totality criminally investigate Guy Shorrock criminal activity.

 

 

Below is another example from many where Shorrock has matter of fact lied to the police in relation to a search warrant because he thought his confidential report highlighted below with my comments in red and the police video that conclusively affirms that Shorrock lied in his confidential report below would not be released into the public domain.

 

Please note that the matters mentioned in Shorrock’s confidential report below resulted in Shorrock being sued. The judgement is enclosed. I have the court transcripts of the court cases including the one in which a judge said Shorrock could not be believed. The court transcripts can be supplied on request.

 

Guy Shorrock confidential report is below with my comments in red and the vital parts of Shorrock’s report that proves he had lied to the police are highlighted in blue.

 

Confidential Report to Hampshire Police concerning the execution of a search warrant at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants on 19 January 2005

I am Guy Shorrock, a Senior Investigations Officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) based at their headquarters at Sandy in Bedfordshire. I have been employed as an Investigations Officer for over thirteen years, prior to which I was a Police Officer for over seven years with the Greater Manchester Police. The work of the Species Protection Department in which I am based is primarily concerned with gathering evidence of infringements of the legislation that protects wildlife in the United Kingdom, principally in relation to offences involving wild birds. The Department plays an advisory role, assisting the statutory agencies in their investigations, especially through the Police Wildlife Crime Officers' (WCO) network.

 

WHY DID Guy Shorrock leave the police force? I have been told he was asked to resign for interfering with evidence.

During the last 21 years, I estimate I have probably been involved with the execution of over 100 search warrants. [ALL THE SEARCH WARRANTS NEED INVESTIGATING] The large majority of these have been during the last 13 years in relation to wildlife offences, many of which have related to egg collecting enquiries. I currently possess probably more experience of egg collecting enquiries than any other person in the UK and have given expert evidence on this area of crime at court on numerous occasions. [PROVE THIS] The RSPB have been instrumental in assisting the statutory agencies to bring many convictions against egg collectors. Consequently, there is often some animosity during search warrants directed towards RSPB staff rather than the police officers actually responsible for executing the warrant. [PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THE RSPB BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TRUST THE RSPB DUE TO THE LIES OF THE PAST] The RSPB Investigations Section takes considerable care when speaking to the police about search warrants and routinely discusses the following areas: -

• Grounds for the warrant

• Relevant legislation

• Advice on items which should be named as sought

• A request for RSPB staff to be specifically named on the warrant.

[PROVE IT]

Whilst I am not aware of any legislation that specifically states that other persons authorised by the court have to be named on the warrant, the RSPB has always asked this to be done for clarity and in case of objections raised by occupiers.

[uNDER THE CODES OF PRACTISE OF THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT ONLY THE PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN ENTER THE PROPERY COVERED BY THE SEARCH WARRANT. GIVEN SHORROCK’S PAST AND HIS MANY CLAIMED SEARCH WARRANTS HE MUST KNOW THIS FACT]

In addition to assisting the police during warrants with advice on what may be relevant evidence in relation to an investigation the RSPB are also able to ensure that many items of property are not unnecessarily seized. This is of benefit to the occupier. [NAME ONE PERSON THAT WAS GLAD TO SEE SHORROCK HELPING TO RAID THEIR PROPERTY AS SHORROCK ONLY LOOKS FOR HIS OWN GOALS TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE SEE THE CASE R V BURDEN, R V Myatt, R V Canning and so on]

From 1996, the RSPB, later assisted by the police and the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit at NC1S, gathered a considerable amount of intelligence information on individuals believed to be travelling abroad to collect birds' eggs. Whilst the taking of these may have been illegal under the legislation of the country concerned, it was no offence to possess these eggs once brought back into the UK. This problem existed because of a failure by the UK government to properly transpose requirements of EU Regulations into UK law. This situation was rectified in July 2004, which meant possession of birds' eggs in the UK, which had been taken illegally in other EU member states, was now an offence. On the basis of this an operation was put together to execute warrants at the homes of three targets, two in Hampshire and a third in Cheshire. [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?]

Following considerable consultation with the police and CPS in both Hampshire and Cheshire, on the 4 January 2005 I sent an e-mail to Hampshire and Cheshire Police (enc). This contained the background information for the warrant application and advice about other issues. The information for the warrant application was fairly lengthy as I wanted to ensure any officer making an application would have all the background information should they be asked questions by the court. [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?]

At 05.55 hours on Wednesday the 19 January 2005, myself and a colleague attended at Winchester Police station for a briefing. The first part was undertaken by PC Geoff Culbertson and Sgt Louise Hubble, both officers seemed well prepared and organised. [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?] I then gave some additional guidance to the officers present about what to expect and the type of items sort. As a matter of routine, I asked Sgt Hubble if I could view the warrants. On examination of the two warrants I noted that on the one for the address of Marshall that the RSPB were not specifically named on the warrant, though an identical warrant for the other Hampshire address had the RSPB named. Sgt Hubble stated she had applied for the warrants and had specifically asked the court for authority for RSPB officers to assist with the search warrants and that this had been granted. It seemed clear this was a minor clerical error by the court. [WHY WAS IT CLEAR TO SHORROCK THAT IT WAS JUST A MINOR CLERICAL ERROR? WHY DID SHORROCK CONTINUE ON THE RAID WHEN HE KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT? WHY DID THE POLICE ALLOW SHORROCK TO GO ON THE SEARCH GIVEN THE FACTS?] There was some discussion as to whether it would be worth contacting a Justice of the Peace in relation to this, but as three simultaneous warrants were planned there was insufficient time for this to be done. In the circumstances, as the officer who had made the application for the warrants was present and could clearly confirm the court had given authority for RSPR to assist, it seemed a reasonable course of action to continue as planned. If it had not been possible to consult with the officer who had taken out the warrant, I would not have entered the premises without the consent of the occupier. [ONLY PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN USE THE SEARCH WARRANT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY. RULES ARE NOT MADE TO BE BROKEN BY GUY SHORROCK AS IT SUITS HIM EVEN THOUGH HE IGNORES THE RULES WHEN IT DOES NOT SUIT HIM]

The officers were split into two teams. I was in the team for the address of a Mr Marshall at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants. SP11 7DY. Officers on this team were Sgt Hubble, PC 23615 Andrews, PC 2098 Sard, PC 3331 Mills and PC 3435 Chandler. The warrant was executed at approximately 07.30 hours. There was a female at the address who stated she had recently started lodging at the premises and had no contact details for Mr Marshall. The nature of the warrant was outlined to the occupier and I was not aware of any objections raised about my presence. Two officers spoke to her at some length in an upstairs room (I was not present during this) but she was apparently not able to provide any details of Mr Marshall's whereabouts.

The loft was searched, I believe only one or two officers may have entered the loft. I was not aware of any damage being caused and heard no reference made by any of the officers to any sort of damage relating to the search of this area. The rear ground floor room was locked and the key appeared to be in the lock from the other side. I assisted with an attempt to dismantle the front of the lock and to try and push the key out onto a piece of newspaper pushed under the door but this was not possible [WHY DID SHORROCK GET INVOLVED IN SMASHING DOWN A DOOR WHEN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM AND WHEN HE HAD NO RIGHT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHY IS SHORROCK IN CONTROL INSTEAD OF THE POLICE? SHORROCK AS USUAL HAD TAKEN CONTROL WHEN HE SHOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL]

 

As Mr Marshall could not be contacted, and no key could be located, this was forced at around 08.35 hours. [YOU MEAN SMASHED OPEN, SEE YOU TUBE!]

 

The room was about four metres square and fairly untidy. There was furniture in the room including a desk, and various items stored on shelves and on the floor. It did not appear to be being used as any sort of living space but more likely as storage and an office area. The officers present started to search this room to the left of the door and proceeded around the room in a methodical fashion. A number of items were brought to my attention and I gave advice on the relevance of items to the enquiry. I gave some assistance with the physical searching of the property, this was mainly confined to looking through items passed to me by the police. This is a normal level of involvement for the warrants I assist with. I was wearing a pair of disposable gloves, this is again standard practice [iS THIS TRUE, AS ALL THE OTHER VIDEOS THAT I HAVE SEEN SHORROCK WAS NOT WEARING GLOVES?] to protect my hands and reduce the chances of contaminating items that may be needed for fingerprint examination. I also helped with putting back some of the items into the areas from where they had been found. The room was generally untidy with a numerous documents on surfaces and in drawers. Whilst it is never possible to put items back in exactly the same position as found, it was abundantly clear to myself the officers were being responsible and making efforts to ensure any items examined were being returned to the same area from where they were found. I did not get the impression that any real disruption was being caused to the contents of the room. In fact, in some areas of the room, the replacing of items appeared to constitute some tidying of the room. [THIS IS NOT WHAT THE POLICE VIDEO SHOWS THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON YOU TUBE]

 

During the warrant, Mr Marshall arrived, I gather he had been phoned by the female lodger despite her claims of having no contact number. He appeared angry and aggressive. I always consider this is partly to be expected in the circumstances and let the police speak with him to outline the nature of the warrant. As Mr Marshall entered the rear ground floor room he stormed across towards me with his arms raised. I Avoided eye contact and quietly continued what I was doing. A female police officer did an excellent job of calming Mr Marshall down and his behaviour, though a little erratic at times, was fairly reasonable after this point. He did not ask me to leave or stop what I was doing at any point [confirmed by the police video that has been put on you tube to show Shorrock has lied to the police you will notice on the police video from 9.29 am that Chris Marshall ordered Shorrock off his property as Shorrock was not named on the search warrant. This is matter of fact and clear proof Shorrock is a liar and cannot be trusted by the police, moreover there needs to be a police investigation into all of the complaints made about Shorrock over the years, see you tube for conclusive proof of Shorrock’s lying to the police].

 

 

 

At one point, he asked why the police were seizing a particular item and I outlined that it was based on advice I had given to the police, Mr Marshall seemed satisfied with this explanation. [DID HE SEEM SATISFIED, I SUGGESTED GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDECE HE WAS NOT SATISFIED] Mr Marshall did complain about the mess being caused, but having been present throughout the search of this room I struggled to understand what 'mess' he was actually referring to. Mr [VIEW THE VIDEO AND YOU WILL SEE WHY CHRIS MARSHALL WAS UPSET AT THE WAY HIS BUSINNES DOCUMENTS WERE BEING MIXED UP]

 

Marshall did ask on two occasions a rather unusual question of why we had not been to the address previously. This tended to suggest he thought a warrant was likely to be executed at some stage. Mr Marshall also denied having another residence claiming to be living in B&B accommodation.

I was aware that two vehicles outside were checked but I was not involved in a search of these. Other than the minor damage to the door of the rear ground floor room, I was not aware of any other damage being caused. [‘MINOR DAMAGE’ THIS IS NOT TRUE THE DOOR WAS DISTROYED AND THE FRAME WAS NEARLY KICKED FROM THE WALL, SEE THE POLICE VIDEO FOR PROOF]

The warrant concluded at 10.53 hours and I returned to Andover and then Winchester Police Station for a de-briefing and to sort out exhibits. I took away a number of items for further examination.

The items seized from Marshall, whilst offering some corroboration with the original intelligence, were not evidence of specific offences and I returned these to Hampshire Police. [THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED] The items seized from the other two suspects in the enquiry, provide considerable corroboration of the original intelligence. It is my professional opinion that all the intelligence gathered for the search warrants is accurate and that Mr Marshall is likely to hold an illegal egg collection at some location. I believe Mr Marshall probably uses the Edgeways address as a business and mailing address to reduce the chances of his own residence being located. [GIVEN THE FACTS WHAT SHORROCK HAS JUST SAID IS CLEARLY WRONG AND AN OUTRAGUS COMMENT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED]

 

Mr Marshall is also heavily involved with a group called the Jourdain Society, and I believe he is the current chairman. The members of this group are specifically interested in the nests, eggs and breeding behaviour of wild birds. It is no secret that several current and former members of this society are convicted egg collectors and several, including the other two individuals subject of this enquiry, are suspected to be involved in the illegal taking of eggs. In 1993, the RSPB instigated and assisted the Wiltshire Police with an investigation into the Society, which led to the conviction of six individuals. Understandably, the RSPB is not popular with this group. [WHAT HAS THE AFORESAID GOT TO DO WITH TARGETING CHRIS MARSHALL AND THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE?]

Having assisted the police with a large number of search warrants I considered all the officers to have behaved professionally and that their conduct and behaviour was exemplary throughout. After the conclusion of the warrant, I did in fact mention to Sgt Hubble that I had been impressed with the enthusiasm and efforts of all the officers present and asked if she would pass on the thanks of the RSPB [WELL SHORROCK WOULD SAY THAT THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS A DISGRACE AND CRIMINALLY WRONG].

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Guy Shorrock

Senior Investigations Officer

23.03.05

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Boring yet again, do you never give up!

Alex you are entitled to have your view but I would make the following comments:

1] Why do you keep reading something that is boring to you, just read something else? I think you find it very interesting what I am saying just like your friend in Scotland who lied in my case.

 

2] The thread is not meant to be interesting to you, even though it is, it is meant to expose the truth and embarrass the police into a criminal investigation. In that respect only the truth of the information is important which is why I have used direct quotes and a police video on You Tube to prove that the police have been lied to and there must now be a criminal investigation.

 

Alex you need to move on and read something else that interests you if you do not like the RSPB brought into question.