When that detective called me, she said that I had been sending emails to Mrs Parkinson’s company and told me to stop otherwise I would get arrested.
I have analysed what that detective said and it seems to me that the company never actually complained; it was, in fact, Mrs Parkinson who complained as I was trying to get her sacked for past misdemeanours.
But the police,being the police,tagged that onto the so called case but they were very wrong in doing so; it was a completely different issue and, more to the point, to a different party entirely.
Never in her spiel did she mention the CEO, Robert Forrester ( a tragic waste of space if you ask me) or any of the top executives; only Mrs Parkinson.
ONLY the CEO or other top executive could complain to the police about emails being sent by me to the company. She is a minor financial controller and a regional one at that
So, just as the police always do, they ignore the facts and just bundle it all together, regardless of whether they should or should not.
That is classic police tactics and does not form any basis in law
But, it is all irrelevant. Three out of the four top executives have blocked me so I will just let the snowball effect continue to get worse.
But, it is a classic case of putting one’s head in the sand
I predict that in the end, it will not just be Mrs Parkinson who will lose her job; Robert Forrester will as well, as it was he who refused to entertain sacking Samantha in the first place
What it also shows that regardless of a basis in law, that female detective was “protecting one of her sisters“. Maybe, she fancied her
Yet again, it goes to show how gender biased the whole police force is.