Northern Soul Injustice Dept

[Guest Rowly]

Fuckin Hell - Nick / Dawn. That's just mad!

As everyone else has said - take it straight to the Old Bill... and you've done the right thing in making it public....

Take care Both!

Rowly

[Guest]

From a psychological point of view I'd say the accuser feels that by blaming someone else, exonerates himself. It's an age old method of 'getting oneself off the hook' whether you're guilty or not. There must be some level of guilt to take on such a hefty role if you ask me.

[Guest]

Nick

Really sorry to hear about all this.

The person responsible must be a nutter if he thinks he can blacken your name we all know your a good un

Please report it to the Police a.s.a.p.

Derek

[adamt]

eh what ya gonna do

Edited February 17, 2007 by adamt

[Guest]

huh huh

Edited February 17, 2007 by blackwhite

[adamt]

blah

Edited February 17, 2007 by adamt

[Guest vinylvixen]

I have shown this to my partner, and with my permission, he has the following to say:

I am a former police detective at New Scotland Yard and currently in my 2nd year of a law degree, with the intention to become a barrister. Any comments I make therefore should not be treated as authoritative - they do NOT constitute "legal adivce" even though they may sound as if they do: I am not yet qualified, hence what follows is merely my opinion, albeit from (I hope) a far more legally informed standpoint. The final point to make is that even though Jo is my partner, I am not a "member" of the soul scene - I have never met any of the people mentioned in, or commenting on this thread. I am thertefore 100% independent and I am treating this question objectively as if I were answering an exam question:

Firstly - let's all calm down! While I understand that any recipient of such mail would be concerned, to say the least, I am not convinced that anything I have seen here or in the 4 external documents constitutes a threat. Nick himself has not explicitly stated that he or his family has been threatened. It is obvious that Nick has a lot of support here, and his approach - in my opnion seems rational, logical and even (in the absence of any evidence that Dave Conway IS the author) perfectly reasonable and charitable towards Dave Conway. At the risk of offending either Nick or any of his supporters here (bear in mind that this is 100% objective) - non of you (except Nick) knows whether of not he did in fact steal the records. The great majority of Dr Harold Shipman's colleagues and patient found him to be a diligent, caring and conscientious GP. On the other hand, while I understand Dave Conway's conclusion that Nick is a possible suspect - IF INDEED THERE HAS BEEN A THEFT (which again, none of us know) there is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the records aren't still in Dave's box - with his knowledge - and that this whole affair is a perverted and malicious attempt to falsely blacken Nick's name - again for a reason that none of us know.

I'm trying to be even-handed here, based on the evidence I have seen. When one removes the rhetoric and emotion what is left is the word of one person against that of another. Emotion may well lead you to jump to a conclusion regarding whose word you prefer, but it is not evidence or fact. ANY futher legal process, be it civil or criminal, will ONLY be based upon those two things, so lets leave the emotion behind. Do those of you who support Nick also know Dave equally well AND also feel that his character is sufficiently opposite so that your opinion of Nick is justified? There is nothing wrong with offering moral support to a friend, but let's not be tempted to jump to the conclusion that as Nick has so much support here that Dave Conway - must (by reverse implication) be the villain.

The bottom line here is that there isnt a single piece of evidence that would lead an independent 3rd Party observer (i.e. ME) to make a judgement either way.

What I CAN say is this:

The criminal law

From my police experience, there is insufficient material in any of the letters to constitute a threat of harm / violence / criminal activity against Nick. While there may be some oblique inference when taken all together, I do not believe the Police would consider there to be sufficient evidence of blackmail (which is the most serious offence that would be revealed) to warrant an investigation. The BEST that one could expect is that if the author were knonw (beyond doubt) that an officer might volunteer to go and "have a quiet word" with the author and advise him that while his wording at the moment is on the debatable side of the law, any repeat performance with the slightest slip of the pen may well take him over the line and into criminal territory whereupon the proverbial "ton of bricks" may well descend, having been warned nicely.

(PS for clarification, "threatening behaviour" is a physical activity that usually only occurs in a public place, it is not an appropriate phrase to use here)

The civil law.

The action here would be libel ("slander" is for transient - usually spoken - defamation). Those familiar with the case of Oscar Wilde will know that its a defence if the allegations made are true - although in this case the maliciousness of the author may well go against him (or her). As Nick has already spotted - the cost of such action will not be cheap. 4 figures at least and more like 5. And im not including the pence...In my opinion the stakes here do not justify the time, expense and emotional drain of a civil action - EVEN IF THE AUTHOR CAN BE IDENTIFIED BEYOND DOUBT.

Thus far then I have been a "typical lawyer" and not given much of an answer...I do however have some practical suggestions.

1) Nick: Take the letters, the flyer etc AND the envelope if you still have it. Seal each in its own individual plastig bag. stick a label with your signature, the date and the time over the join/seal in the bag and cover the whole with sellotape so that the bag cannot be opened without destroying your identifying marks. Secondly go to https://www.its-training-uk.com/downloads/MG11.zip and download the file. Use the form simply entitled Mg11.doc. complete the form in the following manner:

I am Nick Brown of

I am a record dealer in the field of rare soul music. On day/date/time I received through my letterbox. As a resul of reading the material I felt .

On day/date/time/place I took the and sealed it a bag which I marked with my signature and identifying mark NB/1 2 / 3 for the flyer, clipping etc>. In between the date I received them and the date I sealed them they were at all time in my custody and control and to the best of my knowledge have not been added to, modified or interfered with in any way.

I am willing to atted court and give evidence if required.

Finally sign and date it at the top and the bottom of each page. If you make any changes, rule through with a single line and initial the change. Insert a number and at the end of the statement, list the number then write the correction. Draw a line through any blank part of the page and initial it so that nothing can be subsequently added.

2) Contact the owners of this website and ask them to preserve this thread on hard copy. Get them to seal the media as above and write an MG11.

3) Contact any other recipeint of the flyers etc and ask them to record / preserve them in the same way.

4) Include in your MG11 a record of the dates / times etc of any of these other activities...ie on day/date time place i sent an email to X asking him to bag his flyer....

keep a copy of any email you send, bag it & tag it and call it NB/nnn (next nnn in series).

THEN.....IF anything further happens....the police will LOVE you cause you have done 75% of their work for them...and also the process focuses the mind wonderfully on what the REAL evidence is

FINALLY

I suggest that any person here who knows Dave Conway must inform him of this thread, and insist that he goes on record here to confirm or deny the following:

1) That the records alleged did indeed exist in his posession at the material time

2) That he has never voluntarily disposed of them nor given permission to any other person to remove them

3) That he did not send the mail to Nick Brown, nor any of the other material to DJ's clubs etc

He should also be directed to complete an MG11 as described above, and send the signed original to Nick Brown. Nick should then publish that document next to the others he has already done, a) to show balance to others here, B ) to give Dave the right of reply and c) to show an "open hand".

Whoever invites Dave to do that should make clear that he must read the declaration at the top of the form, and that by signing it he is creating a legal document which can be used in court, and that which if made in the knowledge it is untrue may render him liable to criminal prosecution.

Removing both my police helmet and lawyers wig and now speaking as a human being...that should allow him to "put his money where his mouth is". Given the opportunity to do so, his reaction / decision to reply or not will at least give all the other readers here a little more hard evidence on which to base an opinion.

I would futher suggest that the moderator here considers locking the thread, with the exception of allowing a) someone to confirm that they have notified Dave Conway of the thread and also allowing Dave Conway (who is, at the moment, innocent) the right of reply.

In the absence of that, may I issue a plea for greater temperance on all sides unless futher EVIDENCE comes to light? Lets have less smoke and more fire, if there is any.

Phil Bowles

Edited February 17, 2007 by vinylvixen

[SteveM]

I have shown this to my partner, and with my permission, he has the following to say:

I am a former police detective at New Scotland Yard and currently in my 2nd year of a law degree, with the intention to become a barrister. Any comments I make therefore should not be treated as authoritative - they do NOT constitute "legal adivce" even though they may sound as if they do: I am not yet qualified, hence what follows is merely my opinion, albeit from (I hope) a far more legally informed standpoint. The final point to make is that even though Jo is my partner, I am not a "member" of the soul scene - I have never met any of the people mentioned in, or commenting on this thread. I am thertefore 100% independent and I am treating this question objectively as if I were answering an exam question:

Firstly - let's all calm down! While I understand that any recipient of such mail would be concerned, to say the least, I am not convinced that anything I have seen here or in the 4 external documents constitutes a threat. Nick himself has not explicitly stated that he or his family has been threatened. It is obvious that Nick has a lot of support here, and his approach - in my opnion seems rational, logical and even (in the absence of any evidence that Dave Conway IS the author) perfectly reasonable and charitable towards Dave Conway. At the risk of offending either Nick or any of his supporters here (bear in mind that this is 100% objective) - non of you (except Nick) knows whether of not he did in fact steal the records. The great majority of Dr Harold Shipman's colleagues and patient found him to be a diligent, caring and conscientious GP. On the other hand, while I understand Dave Conway's conclusion that Nick is a possible suspect - IF INDEED THERE HAS BEEN A THEFT (which again, none of us know) there is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the records aren't still in Dave's box - with his knowledge - and that this whole affair is a perverted and malicious attempt to falsely blacken Nick's name - again for a reason that none of us know.

I'm trying to be even-handed here, based on the evidence I have seen. When one removes the rhetoric and emotion what is left is the word of one person against that of another. Emotion may well lead you to jump to a conclusion regarding whose word you prefer, but it is not evidence or fact. ANY futher legal process, be it civil or criminal, will ONLY be based upon those two things, so lets leave the emotion behind. Do those of you who support Nick also know Dave equally well AND also feel that his character is sufficiently opposite so that your opinion of Nick is justified? There is nothing wrong with offering moral support to a friend, but let's not be tempted to jump to the conclusion that as Nick has so much support here that Dave Conway - must (by reverse implication) be the villain.

The bottom line here is that there isnt a single piece of evidence that would lead an independent 3rd Party observer (i.e. ME) to make a judgement either way.

What I CAN say is this:

The criminal law

From my police experience, there is insufficient material in any of the letters to constitute a threat of harm / violence / criminal activity against Nick. While there may be some oblique inference when taken all together, I do not believe the Police would consider there to be sufficient evidence of blackmail (which is the most serious offence that would be revealed) to warrant an investigation. The BEST that one could expect is that if the author were knonw (beyond doubt) that an officer might volunteer to go and "have a quiet word" with the author and advise him that while his wording at the moment is on the debatable side of the law, any repeat performance with the slightest slip of the pen may well take him over the line and into criminal territory whereupon the proverbial "ton of bricks" may well descend, having been warned nicely.

(PS for clarification, "threatening behaviour" is a physical activity that usually only occurs in a public place, it is not an appropriate phrase to use here)

The civil law.

The action here would be libel ("slander" is for transient - usually spoken - defamation). Those familiar with the case of Oscar Wilde will know that its a defence if the allegations made are true - although in this case the maliciousness of the author may well go against him (or her). As Nick has already spotted - the cost of such action will not be cheap. 4 figures at least and more like 5. And im not including the pence...In my opinion the stakes here do not justify the time, expense and emotional drain of a civil action - EVEN IF THE AUTHOR CAN BE IDENTIFIED BEYOND DOUBT.

Thus far then I have been a "typical lawyer" and not given much of an answer...I do however have some practical suggestions.

1) Nick: Take the letters, the flyer etc AND the envelope if you still have it. Seal each in its own individual plastig bag. stick a label with your signature, the date and the time over the join/seal in the bag and cover the whole with sellotape so that the bag cannot be opened without destroying your identifying marks. Secondly go to https://www.its-training-uk.com/downloads/MG11.zip and download the file. Use the form simply entitled Mg11.doc. complete the form in the following manner:

I am Nick Brown of

I am a record dealer in the field of rare soul music. On day/date/time I received through my letterbox. As a resul of reading the material I felt .

On day/date/time/place I took the and sealed it a bag which I marked with my signature and identifying mark NB/1 2 / 3 for the flyer, clipping etc>. In between the date I received them and the date I sealed them they were at all time in my custody and control and to the best of my knowledge have not been added to, modified or interfered with in any way.

I am willing to atted court and give evidence if required.

Finally sign and date it at the top and the bottom of each page. If you make any changes, rule through with a single line and initial the change. Insert a number and at the end of the statement, list the number then write the correction. Draw a line through any blank part of the page and initial it so that nothing can be subsequently added.

2) Contact the owners of this website and ask them to preserve this thread on hard copy. Get them to seal the media as above and write an MG11.

3) Contact any other recipeint of the flyers etc and ask them to record / preserve them in the same way.

4) Include in your MG11 a record of the dates / times etc of any of these other activities...ie on day/date time place i sent an email to X asking him to bag his flyer....

keep a copy of any email you send, bag it & tag it and call it NB/nnn (next nnn in series).

THEN.....IF anything further happens....the police will LOVE you cause you have done 75% of their work for them...and also the process focuses the mind wonderfully on what the REAL evidence is

FINALLY

I suggest that any person here who knows Dave Conway must inform him of this thread, and insist that he goes on record here to confirm or deny the following:

1) That the records alleged did indeed exist in his posession at the material time

2) That he has never voluntarily disposed of them nor given permission to any other person to remove them

3) That he did not send the mail to Nick Brown, nor any of the other material to DJ's clubs etc

He should also be directed to complete an MG11 as described above, and send the signed original to Nick Brown. Nick should then publish that document next to the others he has already done, a) to show balance to others here, B ) to give Dave the right of reply and c) to show an "open hand".

Whoever invites Dave to do that should make clear that he must read the declaration at the top of the form, and that by signing it he is creating a legal document which can be used in court, and that which if made in the knowledge it is untrue may render him liable to criminal prosecution.

Removing both my police helmet and lawyers wig and now speaking as a human being...that should allow him to "put his money where his mouth is". Given the opportunity to do so, his reaction / decision to reply or not will at least give all the other readers here a little more hard evidence on which to base an opinion.

I would futher suggest that the moderator here considers locking the thread, with the exception of allowing a) someone to confirm that they have notified Dave Conway of the thread and also allowing Dave Conway (who is, at the moment, innocent) the right of reply.

In the absence of that, may I issue a plea for greater temperance on all sides unless futher EVIDENCE comes to light? Lets have less smoke and more fire, if there is any.

Phil Bowles

Hi Phil, found the above very informative and interesting. Can I just ask a question, generally about such a situation ?

If something similar HAD been taken to the Police( and I understand that there may not be enough evidence for them to do anything), Am I right in assuming that there would be a reference/incident number logged ? And would going to the Police AS WELL as taking the action you described above make put a recipient of such a letter in a stronger position ? Or is there virtually no difference ?

Bit pedantic I know

Steve

[Guest vinylvixen]

Hi Phil, found the above very informative and interesting. Can I just ask a question, generally about such a situation ?

If something similar HAD been taken to the Police( and I understand that there may not be enough evidence for them to do anything), Am I right in assuming that there would be a reference/incident number logged ? And would going to the Police AS WELL as taking the action you described above make put a recipient of such a letter in a stronger position ? Or is there virtually no difference ?

Bit pedantic I know

Steve

Steve,

Its not a pedantic question at all. In reverse order...the position that one is in depends on the strenth of the evidence and the facts themselves - as far as the police are concerned - it MAY "strengthen the position" to the public at large by showing them that you are genuine / serious / dogged enough to take the effort to report it. Thus reporting it even though you know its "borderline" (and you dont expect it to go anywhere) could sometimes be a good "tactical" move...a "shot across the bows" or "calling someone's bluff" (as THEY don't know it's not going anywhere, do they?) as a result it can sometimes prompt them to either try to dispose of earlier evidence, thus implying guilt or lead them to take some other action, make a mistake etc which MAY then have sufficient evidential value to a) corroborate the original allegation or b ) commit a second or different offence.

The sort of thing I'm thinking is a course of harassment, where each early individual incident may in itself not be sufficient, but course of action - taken as a whole - becomes so. The early indisputable report(s) then serve(s) as good evidence in the later dealings.

The 64,000 dollar question is whether there is even sufficient for the police to make a report. If they do, then yes, there will and must be a "crime reference number". Much depends on the opinion of the officer of first contact - he/she may record it then mark it as a "no crime" according to various defined criteria, he may seek advice from a senior officer who may do the same...OR he may persuade the complainant that in the highly likely event that the above will happen on the facts as given, that there is no point in creating the reference in the first place, and thus no report / reference. Consider car radio theft: 99.9% of cases are only ever recorded as insurance companies insist on a crime ref. 99.9% of police know that without video evidence or fingerprints there is no way they will ever be able to find a suspect let alone convict, so they then mark up the case immediately as such and "close" it. If the complainant were uninsured, and naivley believed the police could locate and return his radio...99.9% of police officers would never create a crime reoprt in the first place, and 99.9% of the public understand and accept that!

In summary, my advice above was purely to make that early report, to "get it on paper" so that it MAY be useful later, but without the possibility of putting the police "offside" with a "frivolous" allegation early on.

From a civil point, if Nick B a) hasnt nicked the records, b ) HAD the money and c) wanted to pursue, I would say 99.9% unassailable case of libel just on what we have seen so far. ie whoever the author is (and as yet I have no view) they have already crossed a line in law (albeit civil) and have rendered themselves liable for civil proceedings against them (whether or not they are actually taken)

My final (personal) view is that ANYONE who doesnt have the balls to attach their name to their opinion should keep that (by definiton worthless) opinion to themselves.

All of this is also true for the author of the alleged letters: if they have sufficient evidence of theft, then GO TO THE POLICE. If not, (as we used to say in the job) then they should STFU. If that author is reading this, I am happy for him or her to contact me personally and explain him/herself to an independent 3rd party who a) takes no bullshit b ) isnt afraid of bullies and c) is not afraid to stand by his own views by identifying himself

Phil Bowles

Edited February 17, 2007 by vinylvixen

[SteveM]

Steve,

Its not a pedantic question at all. In reverse order...the position that one is in depends on the strenth of the evidence and the facts themselves - as far as the police are concerned - it MAY "strengthen the position" to the public at large by showing them that you are genuine / serious / dogged enough to take the effort to report it. Thus reporting it even though you know its "borderline" (and you dont expect it to go anywhere) could sometimes be a good "tactical" move...a "shot across the bows" or "calling someone's bluff" (as THEY don't know it's not going anywhere, do they?) as a result it can sometimes prompt them to either try to dispose of earlier evidence, thus implying guilt or lead them to take some other action, make a mistake etc which MAY then have sufficient evidential value to a) corroborate the original allegation or commit a second or different offence.

The sort of thing I'm thinking is a course of harassment, where each early individual incident may in itself not be sufficient, but course of action - taken as a whole - becomes so. The early indisputable report(s) then serve(s) as good evidence in the later dealings.

The 64,000 dollar question is whether there is even sufficient for the police to make a report. If they do, then yes, there will and must be a "crime reference number". Much depends on the opinion of the officer of first contact - he/she may record it then mark it as a "no crime" according to various defined criteria, he may seek advice from a senior officer who may do the same...OR he may persuade the complainant that in the highly likely event that the above will happen on the facts as given, that there is no point in creating the reference in the first place, and thus no report / reference. Consider car radio theft: 99.9% of cases are only ever recorded as insurance companies insist on a crime ref. 99.9% of police know that without video evidence or fingerprints there is no way they will ever be able to find a suspect let alone convict, so they then mark up the case immediately as such and "close" it. If the complainant were uninsured, and naivley believed the police could locate and return his radio...99.9% of police officers would never create a crime reoprt in the first place, and 99.9% of the public understand and accept that!

In summary, my advice above was purely to make that early report, to "get it on paper" so that it MAY be useful later, but without the possibility of putting the police "offside" with a "frivolous" allegation early on.

From a civil point, if Nick B a) hasnt nicked the records, b ) HAD the money and c) wanted to pursue, I would say 99.9% unassailable case of libel just on what we have seen so far. ie whoever the author is (and as yet I have no view) they have already crossed a line in law (albeit civil) and have rendered themselves liable for civil proceedings against them (whther

My final (personal) view is that ANYONE who doesnt have the balls to attach their name to their opinion should keep that (by definiton worthless) opinion to themselves.

All of this is true for the author of the alleged letters: if they have sufficient evidence of theft, then GO TO THE POLICE. If not, (as we used to say in the job) then they should STFU. If the author is reading this, I am happy for him to contact me personally and explain himself to an independent 3rd party who a) takes no bullshit and b ) isnt afraid of bullies and c) not afraid to stand by his own views by identifying himself

Phil Bowles

Cheers Phil

[doowopmick]

I have shown this to my partner, and with my permission, he has the following to say:

I am a former police detective at New Scotland Yard and currently in my 2nd year of a law degree, with the intention to become a barrister. Any comments I make therefore should not be treated as authoritative - they do NOT constitute "legal adivce" even though they may sound as if they do: I am not yet qualified, hence what follows is merely my opinion, albeit from (I hope) a far more legally informed standpoint. The final point to make is that even though Jo is my partner, I am not a "member" of the soul scene - I have never met any of the people mentioned in, or commenting on this thread. I am thertefore 100% independent and I am treating this question objectively as if I were answering an exam question:

Firstly - let's all calm down! While I understand that any recipient of such mail would be concerned, to say the least, I am not convinced that anything I have seen here or in the 4 external documents constitutes a threat. Nick himself has not explicitly stated that he or his family has been threatened. It is obvious that Nick has a lot of support here, and his approach - in my opnion seems rational, logical and even (in the absence of any evidence that Dave Conway IS the author) perfectly reasonable and charitable towards Dave Conway. At the risk of offending either Nick or any of his supporters here (bear in mind that this is 100% objective) - non of you (except Nick) knows whether of not he did in fact steal the records. The great majority of Dr Harold Shipman's colleagues and patient found him to be a diligent, caring and conscientious GP. On the other hand, while I understand Dave Conway's conclusion that Nick is a possible suspect - IF INDEED THERE HAS BEEN A THEFT (which again, none of us know) there is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the records aren't still in Dave's box - with his knowledge - and that this whole affair is a perverted and malicious attempt to falsely blacken Nick's name - again for a reason that none of us know.

I'm trying to be even-handed here, based on the evidence I have seen. When one removes the rhetoric and emotion what is left is the word of one person against that of another. Emotion may well lead you to jump to a conclusion regarding whose word you prefer, but it is not evidence or fact. ANY futher legal process, be it civil or criminal, will ONLY be based upon those two things, so lets leave the emotion behind. Do those of you who support Nick also know Dave equally well AND also feel that his character is sufficiently opposite so that your opinion of Nick is justified? There is nothing wrong with offering moral support to a friend, but let's not be tempted to jump to the conclusion that as Nick has so much support here that Dave Conway - must (by reverse implication) be the villain.

The bottom line here is that there isnt a single piece of evidence that would lead an independent 3rd Party observer (i.e. ME) to make a judgement either way.

What I CAN say is this:

The criminal law

From my police experience, there is insufficient material in any of the letters to constitute a threat of harm / violence / criminal activity against Nick. While there may be some oblique inference when taken all together, I do not believe the Police would consider there to be sufficient evidence of blackmail (which is the most serious offence that would be revealed) to warrant an investigation. The BEST that one could expect is that if the author were knonw (beyond doubt) that an officer might volunteer to go and "have a quiet word" with the author and advise him that while his wording at the moment is on the debatable side of the law, any repeat performance with the slightest slip of the pen may well take him over the line and into criminal territory whereupon the proverbial "ton of bricks" may well descend, having been warned nicely.

(PS for clarification, "threatening behaviour" is a physical activity that usually only occurs in a public place, it is not an appropriate phrase to use here)

The civil law.

The action here would be libel ("slander" is for transient - usually spoken - defamation). Those familiar with the case of Oscar Wilde will know that its a defence if the allegations made are true - although in this case the maliciousness of the author may well go against him (or her). As Nick has already spotted - the cost of such action will not be cheap. 4 figures at least and more like 5. And im not including the pence...In my opinion the stakes here do not justify the time, expense and emotional drain of a civil action - EVEN IF THE AUTHOR CAN BE IDENTIFIED BEYOND DOUBT.

Thus far then I have been a "typical lawyer" and not given much of an answer...I do however have some practical suggestions.

1) Nick: Take the letters, the flyer etc AND the envelope if you still have it. Seal each in its own individual plastig bag. stick a label with your signature, the date and the time over the join/seal in the bag and cover the whole with sellotape so that the bag cannot be opened without destroying your identifying marks. Secondly go to https://www.its-training-uk.com/downloads/MG11.zip and download the file. Use the form simply entitled Mg11.doc. complete the form in the following manner:

I am Nick Brown of

I am a record dealer in the field of rare soul music. On day/date/time I received through my letterbox. As a resul of reading the material I felt .

On day/date/time/place I took the and sealed it a bag which I marked with my signature and identifying mark NB/1 2 / 3 for the flyer, clipping etc>. In between the date I received them and the date I sealed them they were at all time in my custody and control and to the best of my knowledge have not been added to, modified or interfered with in any way.

I am willing to atted court and give evidence if required.

Finally sign and date it at the top and the bottom of each page. If you make any changes, rule through with a single line and initial the change. Insert a number and at the end of the statement, list the number then write the correction. Draw a line through any blank part of the page and initial it so that nothing can be subsequently added.

2) Contact the owners of this website and ask them to preserve this thread on hard copy. Get them to seal the media as above and write an MG11.

3) Contact any other recipeint of the flyers etc and ask them to record / preserve them in the same way.

4) Include in your MG11 a record of the dates / times etc of any of these other activities...ie on day/date time place i sent an email to X asking him to bag his flyer....

keep a copy of any email you send, bag it & tag it and call it NB/nnn (next nnn in series).

THEN.....IF anything further happens....the police will LOVE you cause you have done 75% of their work for them...and also the process focuses the mind wonderfully on what the REAL evidence is

FINALLY

I suggest that any person here who knows Dave Conway must inform him of this thread, and insist that he goes on record here to confirm or deny the following:

1) That the records alleged did indeed exist in his posession at the material time

2) That he has never voluntarily disposed of them nor given permission to any other person to remove them

3) That he did not send the mail to Nick Brown, nor any of the other material to DJ's clubs etc

He should also be directed to complete an MG11 as described above, and send the signed original to Nick Brown. Nick should then publish that document next to the others he has already done, a) to show balance to others here, B ) to give Dave the right of reply and c) to show an "open hand".

Whoever invites Dave to do that should make clear that he must read the declaration at the top of the form, and that by signing it he is creating a legal document which can be used in court, and that which if made in the knowledge it is untrue may render him liable to criminal prosecution.

Removing both my police helmet and lawyers wig and now speaking as a human being...that should allow him to "put his money where his mouth is". Given the opportunity to do so, his reaction / decision to reply or not will at least give all the other readers here a little more hard evidence on which to base an opinion.

I would futher suggest that the moderator here considers locking the thread, with the exception of allowing a) someone to confirm that they have notified Dave Conway of the thread and also allowing Dave Conway (who is, at the moment, innocent) the right of reply.

In the absence of that, may I issue a plea for greater temperance on all sides unless futher EVIDENCE comes to light? Lets have less smoke and more fire, if there is any.

Phil Bowles

As a serving police officer this is exactly the advice I was going to give Nick should he have pm'd me. Very well written phil and good luck with your new career.

Mick

[Guest vinylvixen]

As a serving police officer this is exactly the advice I was going to give Nick should he have pm'd me. Very well written phil and good luck with your new career.

Mick

Phew! Thanks Mick, glad I haven't forgotten everything that they told me at Hendon! Keep the faith Phil

[Guest Bogue]

I have shown this to my partner, and with my permission, he has the following to say:

I am a former police detective at New Scotland Yard and currently in my 2nd year of a law degree, with the intention to become a barrister. Any comments I make therefore should not be treated as authoritative - they do NOT constitute "legal adivce" even though they may sound as if they do: I am not yet qualified, hence what follows is merely my opinion, albeit from (I hope) a far more legally informed standpoint. The final point to make is that even though Jo is my partner, I am not a "member" of the soul scene - I have never met any of the people mentioned in, or commenting on this thread. I am thertefore 100% independent and I am treating this question objectively as if I were answering an exam question:

Firstly - let's all calm down! While I understand that any recipient of such mail would be concerned, to say the least, I am not convinced that anything I have seen here or in the 4 external documents constitutes a threat. Nick himself has not explicitly stated that he or his family has been threatened. It is obvious that Nick has a lot of support here, and his approach - in my opnion seems rational, logical and even (in the absence of any evidence that Dave Conway IS the author) perfectly reasonable and charitable towards Dave Conway. At the risk of offending either Nick or any of his supporters here (bear in mind that this is 100% objective) - non of you (except Nick) knows whether of not he did in fact steal the records. The great majority of Dr Harold Shipman's colleagues and patient found him to be a diligent, caring and conscientious GP. On the other hand, while I understand Dave Conway's conclusion that Nick is a possible suspect - IF INDEED THERE HAS BEEN A THEFT (which again, none of us know) there is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the records aren't still in Dave's box - with his knowledge - and that this whole affair is a perverted and malicious attempt to falsely blacken Nick's name - again for a reason that none of us know.

I'm trying to be even-handed here, based on the evidence I have seen. When one removes the rhetoric and emotion what is left is the word of one person against that of another. Emotion may well lead you to jump to a conclusion regarding whose word you prefer, but it is not evidence or fact. ANY futher legal process, be it civil or criminal, will ONLY be based upon those two things, so lets leave the emotion behind. Do those of you who support Nick also know Dave equally well AND also feel that his character is sufficiently opposite so that your opinion of Nick is justified? There is nothing wrong with offering moral support to a friend, but let's not be tempted to jump to the conclusion that as Nick has so much support here that Dave Conway - must (by reverse implication) be the villain.

The bottom line here is that there isnt a single piece of evidence that would lead an independent 3rd Party observer (i.e. ME) to make a judgement either way.

What I CAN say is this:

The criminal law

From my police experience, there is insufficient material in any of the letters to constitute a threat of harm / violence / criminal activity against Nick. While there may be some oblique inference when taken all together, I do not believe the Police would consider there to be sufficient evidence of blackmail (which is the most serious offence that would be revealed) to warrant an investigation. The BEST that one could expect is that if the author were knonw (beyond doubt) that an officer might volunteer to go and "have a quiet word" with the author and advise him that while his wording at the moment is on the debatable side of the law, any repeat performance with the slightest slip of the pen may well take him over the line and into criminal territory whereupon the proverbial "ton of bricks" may well descend, having been warned nicely.

(PS for clarification, "threatening behaviour" is a physical activity that usually only occurs in a public place, it is not an appropriate phrase to use here)

The civil law.

The action here would be libel ("slander" is for transient - usually spoken - defamation). Those familiar with the case of Oscar Wilde will know that its a defence if the allegations made are true - although in this case the maliciousness of the author may well go against him (or her). As Nick has already spotted - the cost of such action will not be cheap. 4 figures at least and more like 5. And im not including the pence...In my opinion the stakes here do not justify the time, expense and emotional drain of a civil action - EVEN IF THE AUTHOR CAN BE IDENTIFIED BEYOND DOUBT.

Thus far then I have been a "typical lawyer" and not given much of an answer...I do however have some practical suggestions.

1) Nick: Take the letters, the flyer etc AND the envelope if you still have it. Seal each in its own individual plastig bag. stick a label with your signature, the date and the time over the join/seal in the bag and cover the whole with sellotape so that the bag cannot be opened without destroying your identifying marks. Secondly go to https://www.its-training-uk.com/downloads/MG11.zip and download the file. Use the form simply entitled Mg11.doc. complete the form in the following manner:

I am Nick Brown of

I am a record dealer in the field of rare soul music. On day/date/time I received through my letterbox. As a resul of reading the material I felt .

On day/date/time/place I took the and sealed it a bag which I marked with my signature and identifying mark NB/1 2 / 3 for the flyer, clipping etc>. In between the date I received them and the date I sealed them they were at all time in my custody and control and to the best of my knowledge have not been added to, modified or interfered with in any way.

I am willing to atted court and give evidence if required.

Finally sign and date it at the top and the bottom of each page. If you make any changes, rule through with a single line and initial the change. Insert a number and at the end of the statement, list the number then write the correction. Draw a line through any blank part of the page and initial it so that nothing can be subsequently added.

2) Contact the owners of this website and ask them to preserve this thread on hard copy. Get them to seal the media as above and write an MG11.

3) Contact any other recipeint of the flyers etc and ask them to record / preserve them in the same way.

4) Include in your MG11 a record of the dates / times etc of any of these other activities...ie on day/date time place i sent an email to X asking him to bag his flyer....

keep a copy of any email you send, bag it & tag it and call it NB/nnn (next nnn in series).

THEN.....IF anything further happens....the police will LOVE you cause you have done 75% of their work for them...and also the process focuses the mind wonderfully on what the REAL evidence is

FINALLY

I suggest that any person here who knows Dave Conway must inform him of this thread, and insist that he goes on record here to confirm or deny the following:

1) That the records alleged did indeed exist in his posession at the material time

2) That he has never voluntarily disposed of them nor given permission to any other person to remove them

3) That he did not send the mail to Nick Brown, nor any of the other material to DJ's clubs etc

He should also be directed to complete an MG11 as described above, and send the signed original to Nick Brown. Nick should then publish that document next to the others he has already done, a) to show balance to others here, B ) to give Dave the right of reply and c) to show an "open hand".

Whoever invites Dave to do that should make clear that he must read the declaration at the top of the form, and that by signing it he is creating a legal document which can be used in court, and that which if made in the knowledge it is untrue may render him liable to criminal prosecution.

Removing both my police helmet and lawyers wig and now speaking as a human being...that should allow him to "put his money where his mouth is". Given the opportunity to do so, his reaction / decision to reply or not will at least give all the other readers here a little more hard evidence on which to base an opinion.

I would futher suggest that the moderator here considers locking the thread, with the exception of allowing a) someone to confirm that they have notified Dave Conway of the thread and also allowing Dave Conway (who is, at the moment, innocent) the right of reply.

In the absence of that, may I issue a plea for greater temperance on all sides unless futher EVIDENCE comes to light? Lets have less smoke and more fire, if there is any.

Phil Bowles

Here's my head on the block again !

Phil, i understand where you are coming from to an extent, i myself thought after i had put up a message of support, that really i don't know either party & who knows it could also be an elaborate way of deflecting blame if they had actualy stole the records, though i really don't personaly believe that to be true.

But as you say if we don't know for certain then we are not in a position to comment.

I also think it's a noble gesture to offer the advice that you have.

But !

Now before i write the next bit, i want you to know i am & always have been a law abiding citizen, i am not a political activist or anything like that, or have any particular reason to have a downer on the Police .

& now the 'but'.

I find part of what you say a little disturbing & shows an attitude that i feel is a little too much to the fore in the Police & Legal ranks today.

I accept that it is a hard & difficult job & the pressures added from lack of funding also play a big part.

That said, i think that the Police & Legal fields these days too easily head for the 'do nothing because of the time it will take' option !

I feel that sometimes they only seem to be prepared to do the leg work when there is a guaranteed result, which usually seems to be against 'usually' law abiding citizens who they know will be able to pay, so to speak.

The part of your post that made me want to express this is the bit i have highlighted in your post above.

I'm sorry, but to me the most serious offence isn't the 'possible blackmail', it is the fact that a family has been frightened & caused (possibly) unwarrented stress & worry ! & I find it wrong that the Police attitude would be only go & have a word if someone 'volunteers' because there is no absolute concrete threats !

To me there are enough indirect threats to make it a 'must' that Police officer has a word. I know that there is no prospect of a prosecution, & frankley, i wouldn't want there to be at this stage, but a word of warning is ,surely, a must ?.

Not saying that in this instance it would happen, but if someone who issues veiled threats then takes the next step & does harm in some way to property or being, I don't think saying 'It's alright you have bagged up all the previous evidence & done all our work' is going to cut much ice with the victim !

Again, i applaud most of what you posted Phil but i felt i had to express this feeling because i think it is something that is happening a lot in our society & in my opinion is a wrong & slippery path.

Sincerly,

Bogue

Edited February 17, 2007 by Bogue

[Guest]

Here's my head on the block again !

Phil, i understand where you are coming from to an extent, i myself thought after i had put up a message of support, that really i don't know either party & who knows it could also be an elaborate way of deflecting blame if they had actualy stole the records, though i really don't personaly believe that to be true.

But as you say if we don't know for certain then we are not in a position to comment.

I also think it's a noble gesture to offer the advice that you have.

But !

Now before i write the next bit, i want you to know i am & always have been a law abiding citizen, i am not a political activist or anything like that, or have any particular reason to have a downer on the Police .

& now the 'but'.

I find part of what you say a little disturbing & shows an attitude that i feel is a little too much to the fore in the Police & Legal ranks today.

I accept that it is a hard & difficult job & the pressures added from lack of funding also play a big part.

That said, i think that the Police & Legal fields these days too easily head for the 'do nothing because of the time it will take' option !

I feel that sometimes they only seem to be prepared to do the leg work when there is a guaranteed result, which usually seems to be against 'usually' law abiding citizens who they know will be able to pay, so to speak.

The part of your post that made me want to express this is the bit i have highlighted in your post above.

I'm sorry, but to me the most serious offence isn't the 'possible blackmail', it is the fact that a family has been frightened & caused (possibly) unwarrented stress & worry ! & I find it wrong that the Police attitude would be only go & have a word if someone 'volunteers' because there is no absolute concrete threats !

To me there are enough indirect threats to make it a 'must' that Police officer has a word. I know that there is no prospect of a prosecution, & frankley, i wouldn't want there to be at this stage, but a word of warning is ,surely, a must ?.

Not saying that in this instance it would happen, but if someone who issues veiled threats then takes the next step & does harm in some way to property or being, I don't think saying 'It's alright you have bagged up all the previous evidence & done all our work' is going to cut much ice with the victim !

Again, i applaud most of what you posted Phil but i felt i had to express this feeling because i think it is something that is happening a lot in our society & in my opinion is a wrong & slippery path.

Sincerly,

Bogue

Just another out of touch copper,who wants to become even more out of touch by becoming a barrister i am joking sort of

Edited February 17, 2007 by ken

[Guest Andy BB]

Flippin heck ladies. Come on.

Someone on here surely knows who the comedy vigilante is...

[stainless steve]

Hi everyone,

First of all, a million thanks for the e-mails offering support and advice that have flooded in, and I'm sorry if I can't get back to you all individually straight away - It's a bit overwhelming trying to deal with this at the moment. One thing that has been pointed out to me is that the original links I put up aren't working properly, so here are the corrected versions.

All the offending material can be viewed at:

https://www.scenesville.info/threateningletter.htm

https://www.scenesville.info/dealerletter.htm

https://www.scenesville.info/defamatoryflyer.htm

https://www.scenesville.info/creepyclipping.htm

Once again, SO many thanks to all of you. Your support has been invaluable, and I'm really beginning to think we're going to beat this thing. Thank you again.

All the Best,

Nick Brown

[/quote.

Just seen your post its terrible what's happened to you. Hope whoever IS responsible get what they deserve! My husband has had many records taken at allnighters , but to be accused of something you haven't done is bloody awful too.

Hope its all sorted out soon.

Steve & Kaz

[Guest vinylvixen]

Bogue -

I understand your comments and/or criticisms. I havent tried to express any opinion as to the moral rights or wrongs of the legal situation, I was merely letting people know the ways things actually are in real life, and how I would deal with the situation if it were me, knowing what I know...right or wrong. good or bad.

As Machiavelli said, we must live in the world the way it IS, not the way it SHOULD BE.

It would be pointless for me to paint an artificially rosy picture suggesting a dawn raid at the house of the author and an instant charge for blackmail followed by a brief show-trial and then long years of unpleasantness as the glove puppet of "Mr Big" on "E" wing...only to have the "victims" find that this is far from the reality.

Point is...the truth is the truth. You can't hide from it, no matter how unpleasant you may find it.

As for the other commentator who suggests I am out of touch - perhaps I AM, in terms of current operational practice - its four years since I was last operational...but lets just remember why this thread exists...because someone has made an allegation againt Nick Brown with no obvious evidence. Are any of you who instantly side with Nick taking the anonymous author seriously? Why not? Having assessed what you have heard and balanced it against what you know...you have rejected it. Yet you wish to deny the police the same opportunity! Are you suggesting that the police should routinely behave in the same slap-happy fashion as the author of the anonymous material, by pulling out the big guns and firing loudly before they even have a chance to assess whether an offence has actually been committed? And what should their action be where the facts fail to pass that test? By insiting the poilce should take ANY allegation seriously, we should all be rooting for a full and frank investigation - no questions asked - of the [obviously true?] allegations of the "Northern Soul Injustice Department". I hope you can see the irony here!

The bottom line is that the evidence as shown does not - in my opinion - contain the elements of a criminal offence, however obviously morally reprehensible it is. There has been no threat. The law in this country is NOT just statutory, it is built on the common law (ie decision of previous higher courts, it may not be as clear as it appears here to the uninitiatied on the bald facts). We live in a democracy, we all have the power to vote. If you think that what has occurred SHOULD be an offence, lobby your MP or take the short route and become a revolutionary anarchist.

I sympathise with Nick Brown. I have done my best here to help him. I also sympathise with Dave Conway if he is NOT the author and I'd help him too if that turns out to be the case. If he is genuine, he is a victim too, of a theft. The one person to whom I would NOT offer that help is you guessed it....but I, like all of you...do not know who that is ...yet.

Whatever you think of my views (and I don't take any of these comments personally) at least I beleive I am a little more in touch with REALITY than "herbie the hunter".

My intention here was to assist and inform, I didnt want to start a debate that detracts from a) the problems that Nick and his family have been caused or b ) identifying the source of the problem.

Can we all agree to concentrate on those things for the sake of all innocent parties in this affair?

Phil Bowles

Edited February 18, 2007 by vinylvixen

[Guest vinylvixen]

PS I was brought up in an era when a "clip round the ear" from a copper was often all that was needed. Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 that option is now (gladly) no longer allowed. The police have statutory powers to investigate criminal offences - they have no lawful power to "have a quiet word" - hence the reason it would need to be an understanding copper who volunteered.

Faced with a bold imperative to "go forth and multiply" from the intended recipient of the quiet word...the police would have no option but to ...er...slink away. To do otherwise would be act outside of the execution of his/her duty, ie unlawfully. Sad but true. Again, lobby your MP.

Phil Bowles

Edited February 18, 2007 by vinylvixen

[Nickg]

I would futher suggest that the moderator here considers locking the thread, with the exception of allowing a) someone to confirm that they have notified Dave Conway of the thread and also allowing Dave Conway (who is, at the moment, innocent) the right of reply.

In the absence of that, may I issue a plea for greater temperance on all sides unless futher EVIDENCE comes to light? Lets have less smoke and more fire, if there is any.

Phil Bowles

We have taken the advice of Phil, thanks for your time & input, and decided to lock the thread, when, we hope, there are any further developments, we will gladly re-open it, just contact any of the mods via the PM facility, or the sites "contact us" on the home page.

Cheers

Nick