Series of articles on the incompetence of Dorset Police, Crown Prosecution Service, and Bournemouth Crown Court

Bournemouth 05-05-2025: The owner of Phones Rescue Ltd, a company allegedly driven to ruin by Dorset Police officers, has made a dramatic appeal to the UK Home Office. He claims that the actions of Dorset Police officers led to the collapse of his business and is requesting supervision of the ongoing investigation into the matter.

In a letter addressed to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the business owner outlines a series of serious allegations against specific Dorset Police officers and accuses the force’s senior management of negligence. Complaints have already been lodged with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which is conducting an investigation (References: IOPC 2024/199375, Dorset Police CO/01435/23). However, as the letter’s author emphasises, the severity of the allegations, concerns about systemic issues within Dorset Police, and fear of interference have prompted him to take the “extraordinary step” of appealing directly to the Home Office.

Key Allegations Against Dorset Police

The business owner accuses officers of, among other things:

  • Fabricating evidence and filing false reports.
  • Systematically breaching the Victim’s Code of Practice.
  • Unlawful eviction, arrest, and detention, which allegedly directly led to the collapse of Phones Rescue Ltd.
  • Gross negligence in conducting the investigation, including failure to interview key witnesses.
  • Potential gender discrimination in proceedings related to domestic abuse.
  • Attempts to cover up officer misconduct.
  • Negligence and lack of supervision by the Chief Constable.

The letter names specific officers (PC Rose Pratt, PC Simon Shaw, PC Matt Lambert) and the Chief Constable (Amanda Pearson), attributing particular alleged breaches to them. Particularly concerning are the allegations of evidence fabrication and the connection of one officer to another controversial case involving a former Dorset Police officer, which the complainant suggests may indicate a dangerous pattern of behaviour.

Appeal for Home Office Oversight

The business owner argues that his experiences have led to a complete loss of trust in Dorset Police. He fears that officers may attempt to interfere with the IOPC investigation. Therefore, he formally requests “active monitoring and direct supervision by the Home Office” over the proceedings conducted by the IOPC.

He stresses that the allegations go beyond individual errors and suggest systemic problems requiring intervention at a higher level. He points out that the Home Office bears ultimate responsibility for the integrity of policing and appeals for the matter to be treated with due seriousness and urgency.

Detailed documentation of the case, including articles describing the business owner’s experiences, has been published on the website bournemouthbond.co.uk.

Dorset Police Amanda Pearson

This case casts a shadow over the reputation of Dorset Police and raises questions about the effectiveness of police oversight mechanisms when such serious accusations arise from citizens who have suffered significant personal and financial losses. The Home Office’s response to this appeal will be closely watched.

The content of the letter sent to the Home Office is provided below:

Dear Home Secretary,

[…]I was the owner of Phones Rescue Ltd, a company driven to ruin by Dorset Police, which previously operated in Bournemouth. I am writing to you as a victim of crime and as a complainant regarding the actions of officers within Dorset Police.

This email serves to formally bring to the attention of the Home Office a pattern of serious allegations concerning misconduct and potential criminal behaviour by specific Dorset Police officers – namely PC Rose Pratt, PC Simon Shaw, PC Matt Lambert – and allegations of negligence against Chief Constable Amanda Pearson. Concurrently, I urgently request direct Home Office supervision of the ongoing investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) into this matter (IOPC Reference – 2024/199375, Force Reference Number – CO/01435/23).

I wish to inform you that formal complaints have already been lodged with Dorset Police, and the IOPC is currently investigating this matter. The IOPC is the body overseeing the police complaints system. The decision to approach the Home Office directly is an extraordinary step, prompted by the gravity of the allegations, the perceived systemic nature of the issues within Dorset Police, the significant personal and financial harm I have suffered (including the ruin of my company, Phones Rescue), and a documented fear of evidence tampering and obstruction by Dorset Police officers, based on my previous experiences with this force.

Summary of Key Allegations

The allegations against Dorset Police officers and leadership in my case encompass a wide range of purported breaches of law and professional standards:

  • Fabricating evidence and submitting false reports.
  • Systematic disregard and breach of the statutory Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victim’s Code).
  • Alleged fabrication of criminal charges.
  • Attempts to cover up officer misconduct.
  • Unlawful eviction, arrest, and detention.
  • Gross negligence in investigation and supervision.
  • Potential gender discrimination in the handling of domestic abuse.
  • Actions directly leading to the financial ruin and bankruptcy of Phones Rescue Ltd.

The consequences of these actions have been catastrophic for me, leading to the loss of my business, livelihood, and home.

Detailed Chronology and Specific Allegations Against Named Individuals

Below, I outline the detailed allegations, chronologically where possible, attributed to specific officers:

Police Constable Rose Pratt (Officer in Charge):

  • Alleged Unlawful Eviction and Destruction of Business: On 23rd June 2023, an incident occurred which led to my removal from my home, which also served as my business premises. I contend that this eviction was unlawful and was the direct cause of the collapse of Phones Rescue.
  • Alleged Negligence in Investigation: I accuse PC Pratt of delaying the investigation, which lasted nearly nine months without interviewing key witnesses who could corroborate my version of events and the alleged falsehoods of my former partner. This delay prevented me from proving my innocence and regaining access to my home and business.
  • Alleged Breaches of the Victim’s Code: Specific breaches of the Victim’s Code include:
    • Failure to provide written confirmation of the crime report.
    • Failure to refer to victim support services.
    • Failure to provide updates on the investigation’s progress, including ignoring my emails and inquiries.
  • Alleged Dishonesty/Fabrication: I accuse PC Pratt and PC Simon Shaw of entering false information into police reports (e.g., claiming I pushed my former partner, without presenting evidence) and ignoring inconsistencies in the accuser’s statements, which were noted by other officers early on.
  • Alleged Procedural Violations: An example includes informing me via email about the extension of my bail conditions on the day of the meeting, with only a few hours’ notice.
  • Alleged Gender Discrimination: I believe that PC Pratt (and Dorset Police generally) discriminated against me as a male victim of domestic abuse, ignoring my reports of assault, while my former partner’s accusations resulted in immediate action, including my eviction and arrest. The combination of alleged procedural violations, breaches of the Victim’s Code, and investigation delays attributed to PC Pratt creates a picture not just of incompetence, but potentially of deliberate obstruction or bias, reinforcing my concerns about evidence tampering.

Police Constable Simon Shaw:

  • Alleged False Reporting (Eviction): I allege that PC Shaw falsely reported that the police prohibited me from returning home, contributing to what I believe was an unlawful eviction.
  • Domniemany wzorzec niewłaściwego postępowania (sprawa Mike’a Henstridge’a): I specifically refer to my assertion that PC Simon Shaw was involved in another case involving the fabrication of evidence against domestic abuse victims, including the case against former Dorset Police officer Mike Henstridge. This may evidence a pattern of behaviour justifying concerns about PC Shaw’s integrity and honesty. My gravest concerns regarding the intentions of Dorset Police are also fuelled by the words of Mike Henstridge in his book about misconduct within Dorset Police: “Officers were also pressurised to arrest the male rather than the female party, especially if children lived at the address, even if the female was the problem.” This indicates that this is not an isolated incident but demonstrates systemic breaches of the law and gender discrimination against victims by Dorset Police officers. This is a key element justifying the escalation of the complaint to the Home Office. It underscores a breakdown of trust based on perceived patterns.

Police Constable Matt Lambert:

  • Alleged Cover-Up: I allege that PC Matt Lambert is attempting to cover up the matter concerning the collapse of Phones Rescue, potentially to conceal irregularities within Dorset Police.

Chief Constable Amanda Pearson:

  • Alleged Negligence and Lack of Oversight: I allege negligence on the part of the Chief Constable. I argue that the alleged pattern of misconduct by multiple officers under her command indicates a failure in leadership, supervision, and enforcement of professional standards within Dorset Police. Broader issues highlighted in external reports (e.g., PEEL report findings concerning investigations and treatment of the public, IOPC findings regarding offensive messages, negligence in the Gaia Pope case) may provide contextual indicators of leadership challenges, even if not directly linked to my case. Holding the Chief Constable accountable, even indirectly through negligence, elevates the complaint from individual officer misconduct to a systemic failing requiring institutional attention, further justifying Home Office involvement.

Supporting Evidence and Documentation

These allegations are detailed and supported by a series of articles published on the website bournemouthbond.co.uk, which document my experiences and perspective. Below is a list of URLs containing details and evidence of alleged law-breaking by Dorset Police officers:

I am prepared to provide copies of all correspondence with Dorset Police, the IOPC, and other relevant documents upon request.

Justification for Home Office Oversight of the IOPC Investigation

I stress that the allegations presented are not isolated incidents but suggest a pattern of serious misconduct, potential criminality, and systemic failings within Dorset Police.

My experiences, documented on bournemouthbond.co.uk, have led to a profound lack of trust in Dorset Police. I have a reasonable fear that Dorset Police personnel may attempt to obstruct, mislead, or otherwise improperly influence the IOPC investigation. This fear is a logical consequence of the nature of the allegations, which include evidence fabrication and cover-up. If these allegations are true, the full and honest cooperation of Dorset Police with the IOPC cannot be relied upon.

The alleged involvement of multiple officers, the nature of the allegations (evidence fabrication, cover-up), and the purported links to other cases (the Henstridge matter) indicate problems that may extend beyond individual culpability and require scrutiny beyond the standard IOPC process, which relies on cooperation from the force under investigation. Other known issues within Dorset Police, documented in reports, may subtly reinforce the argument for wider systemic issues.

The Home Office holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness, efficiency, and integrity of policing in England and Wales. My request for oversight is an appeal to this responsibility in a situation where standard mechanisms appear compromised or insufficient from the victim’s perspective. The Home Office also has oversight over the IOPC itself. This request is not intended to bypass the IOPC, but to ensure that the IOPC’s investigation can proceed without potential prejudice from the police force under investigation.

Allowing an investigation into such serious allegations, particularly those suggesting systemic problems and potential interference, to proceed without enhanced oversight risks further undermining public confidence in both Dorset Police and the police complaints system as a whole.

Specific Requested Action

Therefore, I formally request the active monitoring and direct supervision by the Home Office of the specific IOPC investigation concerning the complaints lodged by me, […] against Dorset Police officers Pratt, Shaw, Lambert, and Chief Constable Pearson.

I suggest that this oversight should include regularly obtaining updates from the IOPC, ensuring adequate resources are allocated, and scrutinising the scope and findings of the investigation for impartiality and thoroughness, with particular attention to the allegations of evidence fabrication and cover-up.

I request written confirmation of receipt of this correspondence, its registration, and assurance that it will be duly considered by the appropriate officials within the Home Office. I also request, if possible, the details of a contact person within the Home Office for further communication regarding this matter.

I trust that the Home Office will treat these serious matters with the urgency and gravity they deserve.

Yours sincerely,