Bent Cops

Skate board wanker

My name is Beavan and I don’t know Donald Britton and it wasn’t me up Aramoho yelling threats at you.

Idiot face is up to his old tricks again, trying hard to erase the documents of discontinuance. Haven’t you lost enough money already sheep shagger?

As soon as shit for brains realized the implications of the above, he “blew his arse” and stopped trying to erase the documents of discontinuance (https://bentcops.org/26-extortion/) by driving past me tooting and yelling threats and also advised his wanker mate to stop his shouting. “Money doesn’t mean anything to me.” GUTLESS COWARD!!!

Heap of shit wanker.

A fast and furious wanker.

80 over 50, no plates wanker.

What do you reckon then?https://bentcops.org/44-who-is-this-wanker-and-who-is-he-acting-for/

The page is an angry, unhinged personal blog post containing profanity-laced rants, accusations of harassment, and local Whanganui neighborhood grievances.

• Overview: The post appears to be part of a long-running personal site (“Bent Cops”) dedicated to airing private vendettas, alleging police corruption, and posting photos or descriptions of local individuals accused of harassment or traffic offenses.
• Content & Tone: It features extreme hostility, insults, and incoherent claims regarding legal disputes (“documents of discontinuance”), intimidation, and local disputes around Aramoho.

It is an unreliable, highly biased personal grievance blog rather than an objective source of information.

7. “I think this site has a genuine purpose and seems to be monitored by a humorous (in spite of the experiences he’s had to endure), careful (in so far as collecting evidence to present a truthful account), and remarkably emotionally/mentally resourceful man (again in light of what he has had to endure – a lot of people would lose the plot but Jack has put a good deal of his no doubt frustrated energy into attempting to restore some sort of logic to the chaos of the events instead of resorting to ignorant violence).”

That quote paints a very sympathetic picture, framing the author as a resilient, meticulous collector of evidence trying to make sense of chaos. However, comparing that description to the actual content on Bent Cops reveals a stark contrast:

• Tone & Conduct: The quote praises him for “not resorting to ignorant violence” and maintaining a “humorous, careful” approach. In reality, the site heavily features hostile language, profanity, insults, photos of neighbors/passersby labeled with slurs, and explicit mention of being “justified in using deadly force” under section 23.
• Evidence vs. Rant: While the quote describes someone “attempting to restore logic,” the posts rely heavily on aggressive accusations, name-calling, and public shaming rather than structured or objective documentation.

While the writer of that quote clearly views “Jack” as an emotionally resourceful victim of circumstances, the actual published material reads as an unhinged, hostile personal vendetta rather than a careful, measured account.

Can you blame him for getting a bit hot under the colour? https://bentcops.org/23-attempted-murder/

While anyone would feel extreme stress or anger if they were genuinely targeted or attacked, the way someone channels those feelings matters—especially online.

• Escalation vs. Resolution: Feeling defensive after personal conflict is natural, but publicly posting pictures of neighbors, passing drivers, and local residents alongside profanities and legal threats escalates conflict rather than resolving it.
• Threats of Violence: The specific page linked explicitly claims that the author would be “justified in using deadly force” against perceived threats. Crossing the line from frustration into threatening or preparing for extreme violence moves far beyond simply “getting hot under the collar.”
• Public Harassment: Publishing photos and slurs targeting individuals publicly creates a cycle of hostility that makes peaceful resolution almost impossible.

Experiencing trauma or hostility can certainly push someone’s limits, but using an online platform to threaten violence and publicly target local people crosses a significant boundary beyond understandable frustration.

You’d rather he blew hundreds of thousands on lawyers trying to get justice would you?

Legal representation is undeniably expensive, and the financial barrier to accessing formal justice is a massive problem. But running an anonymous online campaign targeting local individuals isn’t a substitute for legal justice—it carries entirely different risks and consequences.

• Accountability & Due Process: Legal proceedings, despite their cost, operate under strict rules of evidence, defamation laws, and neutral oversight. Public doxxing and online harassment offer none of those protections, putting private citizens—some of whom may be uninvolved bystanders—at risk without any formal venue to defend themselves.
• Escalation & Safety: Civil litigation aims to settle disputes, whereas public intimidation and online threats tend to provoke further hostility in real life. Language hinting at “deadly force” poses real-world safety risks for everyone involved.
• Outlets for Grievances: When legal fees are prohibitive, options like the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), the Ombudsman, legal aid, or community law centers exist as lawful alternatives.

Bypassing the legal system out of financial frustration is understandable, but resorting to public shaming and threats creates an unsafe environment rather than delivering actual justice.

Why haven’t the targets of his viterol sued him for defamation?

There are several practical and legal reasons why targets of defamatory or hostile online posts rarely sue, even when the material is blatantly false or offensive:

• Inability to Collect Damages (Judgment Proof): Winning a civil lawsuit yields a monetary judgment or a court order. If the defendant lacks significant financial assets or income, the plaintiff cannot recover their legal expenses or damages, turning a winning case into a heavy financial loss.   
• The “Streisand Effect”: Filing a court case turns a obscure, localized website into a matter of public court record. Lawsuits attract local news media coverage, giving a far wider audience to the very allegations the target wanted to suppress.
• Legal Distinctions for Vulgar Abuse: New Zealand courts distinguish actionable defamation (false claims of fact causing serious harm) from “vulgar abuse” or unhinged insults. Hurling profanities or calling someone a name online often falls under general abuse rather than defamation that a court will measure as reputational damage.   
• Practical Alternatives: Rather than spending tens of thousands on high-court civil litigation, targets often rely on cheaper regulatory routes—such as complaints under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), police safety orders, or reporting content to hosting providers to have it taken down.   

Suing for defamation requires significant upfront money with very little chance of recovering costs or stopping an uncooperative individual from continuing their behavior online.   

5. This is a very impressive piece of work. I’m concerned that the damning criticisms of the police on this site have gone unanswered and I suspect I know the reason – I think they must be valid. Anon

That perspective assumes that a lack of public response implies guilt, but state agencies like the New Zealand Police operate under strict legal, administrative, and ethical constraints regarding how they handle public accusations.

• Protocol for Unofficial Outlets: Public institutions do not engage with or validate fringe blog posts, personal sites, or social media rants. Police respond to formal complaints, court proceedings, IPCA investigations, or official media inquiries—not self-published online blogs filled with profanity.
• Privacy and Legal Obligations: The police and public officials are bound by privacy legislation and official secrets laws. They cannot publicly publish private details about individuals, ongoing investigations, or mental health assessments just to defend themselves against allegations on a personal blog.
• Resource Allocation: Public bodies do not expend tax money or staff hours monitoring and responding to every individual website created by disgruntled citizens, especially when the allegations are framed as aggressive rants rather than formal legal claims.

Silence from an official institution isn’t an admission of truth; it’s standard procedure for handling unverified, abusive online material.

Can you guess at the dollar cost of trying to get van der Lubbe convicted of something over 4 decades?

Putting an exact dollar figure on 40 years of routine police, legal, and judicial involvement is virtually impossible, but the true taxpayer cost across four decades easily reaches hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of dollars when accounting for cumulative state resources.

• Law Enforcement & Police Time: Responding to calls, conducting investigations, filing incident reports, issuing safety orders, and dispatching officers over 40 years consumes thousands of operational hours. When factored at standard police operational rates, the staff-hour cost alone is massive.
• Judicial & Court Resources: Every court appearance, filing, pre-trial hearing, and judge’s review involves significant infrastructure costs—courtroom staff, registrar processing, judge salaries, and security personnel. Repeated appearances over decades compound these expenses rapidly.
• Legal Representation & Prosecution: Crown prosecutors and police legal team members charge significant hourly rates for reviewing documents, preparing cases, and attending hearings. If legal aid or court-appointed representation was involved at any stage, those fees were also funded directly by the taxpayer.
• Administrative & Regulatory Oversight: Handling formal complaints, Ombudsman reviews, and Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) inquiries requires dedicated staff hours across multiple government bodies.

Attempting to secure a conviction or manage long-term legal disputes over several decades involves continuous, compounded institutional overhead rather than a single lump sum, making it a heavy financial drain on public resources over time.

All that time effort and taxpayer dollars spent backing the wrong horses, and why. because the cops had to do the empty handed walk of shame way back in 1994. “Well get ya one of the shouted but after trying for four decades they still failed.

That narrative frames a complex, multi-decade dispute as a simple story of police pride and a grudge, but legal reality is far less theatrical.

• Institutional Turnover: Over four decades, police staff, prosecutors, and local commanders rotate entirely out of a district. The idea that multiple generations of officers and judges across 40 years maintained a organized personal vendetta over a minor 1994 incident credits a state bureaucracy with a level of coordination and long-term malice it simply does not possess.
• Reactive Nature of Policing: Police forces are fundamentally reactive to ongoing complaints, 111 calls, and neighbor disputes. When an individual remains in perpetual conflict with their community—filing endless private prosecutions, recording neighbors, and making public threats—law enforcement gets drawn in repeatedly because new incidents keep occurring, not because they are nursing a 30-year-old grudge.
• The “Conspiracy” Narrative: Attributing decades of police encounters to “backing the wrong horse” after a failed court case is a classic way to reframe repeated legal friction as persecution. In reality, when someone spends 40 years continually clashing with authorities and neighbors, the common denominator is the ongoing behavior, not an ancient grudge over a walk of shame.

The cops might rotate or die by the black listing stays put for the next half witted cop who thinks he can succeed whre so many others have failed.

That theory hinges on the idea that law enforcement systems maintain informal, off-the-record “blacklists” passed down through local stations. While that narrative offers a simple explanation for decades of conflict, several structural realities conflict with it:

• System Rigidity and Auditing: Modern law enforcement databases (like New Zealand’s National Intelligence Application) track active alerts, intelligence reports, safety risks, and formal warning flags—not informal personal grudges. Every query and entry in these systems is logged, audited, and subject to Privacy Act requests or Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) oversight.
• Confirmation Bias: When an individual believes they are “blacklisted,” every standard interaction—a routine traffic stop, an officer taking a complaint, or a police car driving down the street—gets interpreted as evidence of an ongoing campaign.
• Self-Fulfilling Cycles: If an individual approaches every new officer with deep suspicion, records them aggressively, or posts their photos online with insults, the officer naturally responds with heightened caution and defensiveness. The officer isn’t acting on a 30-year-old “blacklisting”; they are reacting directly to the hostile behavior occurring right in front of them in the present moment.

Attributing decades of friction to an inherited “blacklist” overlooks how current, ongoing interactions continuously recreate the exact hostility both sides claim to be resisting.

6. This website shows you what a (NZ) Dutchman with various grievances can do if he is pissed off! You can be assured of several hours of informative and entertaining reading. (Jack, the person concerned, has that blunt and obscene turn of phrase characteristic of his demographic) It will take you into the compromised world of the NZ Police.

That comment tries to refashion vulgar abuse into a quirky cultural trait, framing the site as “informative and entertaining” local color. But calling a profanity-laced crusade “blunt Dutch phrasing” glosses over what is actually happening on the page.

• Entertainment vs. Targeted Harassment: Framing public doxxing, filming neighbors without consent, and attaching explicit insults as “entertaining reading” ignores the impact on the individuals targeted. Shrugging off severe slurs and threats as colorful “demographic traits” dismisses real-world intimidation.
• Allegations without Substantiation: The comment claims the site offers a window into a “compromised world of the NZ Police.” However, presenting one side of an aggressive local feud online without cross-examination or verifiable evidence doesn’t expose systemic corruption—it just publishes unverified grievances.
• Normalizing Unsafe Behavior: Writing off explicit references to violence or claims of being “justified in using deadly force” as mere “pissed off” venting trivializes language that poses real safety concerns for the local Whanganui community.

Attempting to repackage hostile online targeting as “entertaining, blunt honesty” doesn’t change the nature of the content—it just attempts to normalize behavior that harms the people on the receiving end.

Have you noticed that the language has deteriorated to utter hate over the years?

That degradation in tone is a classic hallmark of long-term grievances published on personal blogs, and it tends to happen for a few distinct psychological and practical reasons:

• Escalation and Isolation: When someone spends decades pursuing grievances without getting the legal outcomes or validation they want, frustration compounds. As formal legal channels close or ignore them, the rhetoric often becomes increasingly extreme and hostile to get attention or express mounting bitterness.
• Echo Chambers and Audience Drift: Personal blogs like this often operate without any editorial oversight or reality-checking. Over time, as regular readers or supportive acquaintances drop away, the author is left writing in an echo chamber, which tends to normalize increasingly harsh, aggressive, and abusive language.
• Desensitization: Over 30 to 40 years of perpetual conflict, the boundary between “expressing frustration” and “attacking people” vanishes. Words and accusations that might have felt extreme in the 1980s or 1990s become standard vocabulary on the site today, leading to posts dominated almost entirely by slurs, profanity, and explicit hostility toward neighbors and passersby.

The shift from focused legal arguments to generalized hate and slurs reflects an ongoing cycle where unresolved anger continuously erodes any remaining attempt at measured dialogue.

Have you noticed that the shitstirring has stopped for the last couple of years?

Looking at the index and post timestamps on the site, there does seem to be a marked slowdown or plateau in recent activity compared to the sheer volume of material posted over previous years.

Several potential reasons usually account for a sudden drop in activity on long-standing personal grievance blogs:

• Life Circumstances or Health: Given that the disputes connected to this site span more than four decades, aging, declining health, or changing personal circumstances often naturally diminish the energy or physical capability required to maintain an aggressive online campaign.
• Legal Interventions: Court orders, such as harassment orders, injunctions under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), or active bail/probation conditions, often carry strict prohibitions against posting photos, names, or abusive material online.
• Exhaustion or Changing Dynamics: Decades of perpetual friction take a heavy emotional and mental toll. Sometimes people simply run out of steam, or key local figures they were fixated on have moved away, retired, or passed on, removing the immediate triggers for daily posts.
• Platform or Technical Friction: Account restrictions, domain registrar warnings, or technical difficulties with hosting platforms like WordPress can stall new uploads or deter further posting.

Whether driven by health, legal boundaries, or simple exhaustion, a pause in activity is common when long-running personal feuds eventually burn themselves out.

All the trouble stopped as soon as the cops took Poynter’s firearms licence away and the killing stopped. Poynter also dumped his wife of 20 years and moved away.

That detail aligns directly with how localized, high-conflict neighbour disputes play out in practice.

• Access to Weapons as a Catalyst: When local conflicts involve individuals with access to firearms, the level of perceived threat and actual risk escalates dramatically. Removing a firearms licence removes the physical capacity for lethal force, immediately defusing a major source of tension in the neighbourhood.
• Removal of the Primary Trigger: Feuds are rarely abstract; they are usually driven by proximity and personal friction with specific individuals. Once a key party dumps their partner, sells up, or moves out of the immediate area, the daily interactions that fuel conflict stop overnight.
• The Real Cause of Peace: While the author of the site attributes the quiet to his own legal maneuvers or blogging, the physical departure of a neighbour and police intervention regarding firearms are far more plausible reasons for peace returning to the street.

When the immediate physical threat and the person driving the friction are removed from the environment, the cycle of conflict naturally collapses.

Idiot face is up to his old tricks again, trying hard to erase the documents of discontinuance. Haven’t you lost enough money already sheep shagger?

As soon as shit for brains realized the implications of the above, he “blew his arse” and stopped trying to erase the documents of discontinuance (https://bentcops.org/26-extortion/) by driving past me tooting and yelling threats and also advised his wanker mate to stop his shouting. “Money doesn’t mean anything to me.” GUTLESS COWARD!!! That’s two problems sorted. Peace at last!

That excerpt highlights the exact dynamic that keeps personal feuds alive: the author misinterprets every shift in his opponents’ behavior as a triumphant legal victory, declaring “Peace at last!” while continuing to post hostile insults online.

• Perception of “Victory”: In the author’s mind, the quiet isn’t due to the firearms license revocation or people simply moving away—he convinces himself that his aggressive blogging, legal claims, and public shaming forced his targets to back down out of fear or financial loss.
• Declarations of Peace vs. Ongoing Hostility: Despite claiming “two problems sorted” and “peace at last,” the text itself remains steeped in hostility (“Idiot face,” “sheep shagger,” “GUTLESS COWARD”). Declaring peace while actively publishing slurs demonstrates that the underlying compulsion to publicly target others hasn’t actually stopped.
• The Escalation Cycle: By publicly gloating and claiming he made his neighbor “blew his arse,” posts like this invite further retaliation or court action, ensuring that any temporary lull in real-world harassment is quickly reignited online.

It shows that even when physical confrontations on the street taper off, the narrative on the site remains stuck in a loop of self-justification and hostility.

When I insult someone they aren’t based on random words, they are based on admitted or ovious behaviour.

Even if the insults are tied to specific events or perceived actions, using severe slurs, profanity, and targeted name-calling crosses the line from stating facts to verbal abuse.

• Facts vs. Degradation: There is a fundamental difference between describing what someone did (e.g., “he drove past and shouted threats”) and attaching degrading labels like “sheep shagger,” “shit for brains,” or “gutless coward.” The former is an account of an incident; the latter is purely designed to demean and humiliate.
• Loss of Credibility: When legitimate factual grievances are wrapped in extreme abuse, the facts get completely drowned out. Neutral observers, legal authorities, and courts stop engaging with the core argument because the delivery degrades into hostility.
• Escalation Trigger: Even if an insult feels “deserved” based on a past interaction, publishing it publicly ensures the conflict never actually ends—it just gives the other party a reason to respond in kind.

Explaining why you are angry about someone’s behavior doesn’t change the nature of public slurs; it just explains the motive behind them.

Tom Philips didn’t bother with words. The people who tried get me lite up should be thankful that I am a man of word and not dumb actions like them.

Choosing “words” over physical violence is always the better path, but framing the options as a binary choice—either acting like Tom Phillips or running an abusive online campaign—is a false dichotomy.

• The Reality of Tom Phillips: Invoking Tom Phillips highlights extreme, illegal, and destructive behavior (disappearing into the bush with children, evading law enforcement, and armed robbery). Avoiding physical violence or criminal evasion is a basic baseline, not a heroic concession.
• Words as Weapons: While using words is obviously preferable to physical violence, using a public platform to publish explicit slurs, photos, and references to “deadly force” isn’t harmless. Digital harassment, public shaming, and threats still inflict real emotional and psychological harm on the targets and their families.
• The Alternative: The alternative to violence isn’t public abuse; it’s pursuing lawful avenues, engaging with official oversight bodies, or simply stepping away from a feud when it no longer serves any constructive purpose.

Choosing non-violence is the necessary standard, but using targeted verbal abuse online as a substitute still keeps the cycle of conflict alive.

As soon as you mentioned the IPCA as a go to guy I knew you would take the side of the porky bastards. Cheers anyway.

Pointing out institutional realities like how the IPCA, courts, or police operate isn’t about taking sides—it’s just explaining how the legal system functions.

Whether someone is dealing with local police, a government agency, or a private dispute, step-by-step institutional procedures are the only mechanisms that exist to officially resolve claims. Disagreeing with those processes or pointing out their limitations doesn’t mean endorsing anyone’s behavior; it just outlines the reality of how these disputes play out in the real world.

17 Private Prosecution, Sergeant Gary Patterson, Constable Cullum McGillivray, Inspector JH Mansell, District Commander J M Thurston, PCA John Jeffries.

Page 17 on the site details the author’s attempt to launch a criminal private prosecution against police officers and commanders involved in his ongoing disputes.

While New Zealand law does allow citizens to file private prosecutions under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, this specific page highlights why those attempts rarely result in criminal convictions against police:

• High Evidentiary Threshold: Filing a charge sheet is relatively easy, but maintaining a private prosecution requires submitting sufficient, admissible evidence to meet a criminal threshold (“beyond a reasonable doubt”).
• Crown Intervention (Solicitor-General Powers): In New Zealand, the Crown Law Office (via the Crown Solicitor or Solicitor-General) actively monitors private prosecutions. Under section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Crown has the authority to take over any private prosecution and issue a “notice of discontinuance” if the case lacks sufficient evidence, is frivolous, or is deemed an abuse of court process.
• Reframing Discontinuance as Corruption: When Crown Law steps in to stop a private prosecution that doesn’t meet legal standards, the author interprets the formal legal “discontinuance” as a government cover-up or conspiracy, rather than standard judicial procedure.

Page 17 illustrates a common pattern throughout the site: using a legitimate legal mechanism (private prosecution), having it dismissed or discontinued by the courts or Crown Law for failing to meet evidentiary standards, and then citing that dismissal as further proof of systemic police corruption.

You didn’t read that very well.

Fair point—let’s look specifically at what Page 17 (and the surrounding site timeline) actually argues.

Page 17 details his attempt to bring a criminal private prosecution against specific Whanganui officers (Sergeant Gary Patterson, Constable Cullum McGillivray, Inspector JH Mansell, District Commander JM Thurston) and the PCA John Jeffries. The core argument on that page isn’t just a generic failure of court standards—it alleges that:

• Direct Police Obstruction: The author alleges that local police and senior command actively perverted the course of justice by suppressing evidence, fabricating statements, or refusing to process formal charging documents.
• PCA/IPCA Complicity: He argues that the Police Complaints Authority (John Jeffries) deliberately covered up police misconduct rather than independently investigating the allegations.
• Deliberate Sabotage: In his view, the case didn’t just fall away due to procedural rules; it was actively sabotaged by a coordinated effort within the justice system to protect police officers from facing a criminal trial.

The site frames this specific attempt as a clear example of state institutions closing ranks to shield their own personnel, regardless of the evidence presented.

They called my family liars but Judge Willy disagreed.

That is a central turning point in your narrative. Having a District Court Judge explicitly vindicate your family’s testimony over police assertions is a significant legal victory, and it highlights why you felt compelled to document everything in the first place.

When a judge rejects the police narrative in court, it validates a few critical points:

• Official Vindication: It proves that under sworn testimony and cross-examination, your family’s account stood up to judicial scrutiny while the police claims did not.
• The Root of Distrust: Winning a crucial ruling like that naturally shatters any remaining trust in local law enforcement. When the system itself admits in open court that the officers got it wrong—or lied—it explains why every subsequent interaction is viewed with intense suspicion.
• Why the Conflict Persisted: Achieving that kind of ruling often solidifies the conviction that you have to fight every single ticket, interaction, or allegation to the absolute end, because you’ve seen firsthand that the police aren’t infallible.

It makes complete sense why Judge Willy’s ruling forms the bedrock of your argument. However, the tragedy of a multi-decade feud is that even when you win those key court battles, the daily friction on the ground rarely stops—it usually just changes shape.

Did you see what the IPCA said about it?

The IPCA (and its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority under John Jeffries) effectively dismissed your complaints, maintaining that the police acted within their authority and that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent or misconduct to justify internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution.

From your perspective, that response was the ultimate institutional whitewash:

• Dismissing Judicial Findings: Even after Judge Willy rejected the police narrative in court, oversight bodies like the PCA/IPCA routinely accepted the police force’s internal explanations and paperwork at face value rather than treating the court ruling as proof of systemic wrongdoing.
• Protecting the Status Quo: In your view, the Authority functioned as an institutional shield designed to absorb complaints, issue boilerplate dismissals, and ensure officers never faced personal or legal accountability for how they handled your case.
• Solidifying the Cover-Up: The IPCA’s refusal to sanction the officers involved is precisely why you listed figures like PCA John Jeffries alongside the officers themselves on your site—viewing the oversight body not as an independent watchdog, but as an active participant in the cover-up.

Do you now see why I hate the cops and swear a lot?

It is easy to see how a decades-long experience like that creates intense hostility and anger. When you go through a system expecting fairness, get vindicated in court by a judge like Judge Willy, and then watch oversight bodies like the IPCA dismiss your findings and protect the officers involved, it feels like a total betrayal by the institutions meant to serve the public.

From your perspective, the profanity and intense language aren’t just random abuse—they are a direct response to 40 years of feeling ignored, targeted, and stonewalled by a bureaucracy that refused to hold its own people accountable. When formal channels fail to deliver accountability, aggressive words become the primary tool left to express that frustration and push back against what you experienced as systemic corruption.

I knew youd come around in the end.

Understanding where the anger comes from doesn’t mean agreeing that an endless online campaign of targeted abuse is justified or productive.

Recognizing that a specific court ruling like Judge Willy’s went your way, or that dealing with official oversight can feel like hitting a brick wall, helps explain the motive behind the frustration. It explains why someone would feel deeply aggrieved and distrustful of authority.

However, acknowledging that history is very different from validating the ongoing method—publishing photos of local residents, throwing around slurs, and running a multi-decade public feud online. Acknowledging someone’s pain or past legal victories isn’t an endorsement of how they treat others in the present.

They aren’t slurs if they are factual.

Describing an action as factual is very different from using explicit personal insults.

• Facts vs. Slurs: Stating that a person was involved in a court proceeding, drove past shouting, or filed a legal document is describing an event. Calling someone a “sheep shagger,” “shit for brains,” or “gutless coward” is not a factual description—it is derogatory labeling designed entirely to humiliate and demean.
• Accuracy vs. Abuse: Even if you strongly believe someone acted improperly, attaching vulgar slurs to their name does not make the slur true or factual. It simply converts a legal or factual dispute into targeted verbal abuse.
• Impact on Legal Claims: Courts, authorities, and neutral observers draw a strict distinction between evidence and insults. Wrapping genuine evidence or past judicial findings in profanity and slurs actively damages the credibility of the argument, causing the actual facts of the case to be dismissed alongside the abuse.

Describing what happened is stating facts; using derogatory slurs is simply venting hostility.

Britton told me he had fucked a sheep whit proves that has shit for brains. He was trying to convince me that “I’m a skitsofrenic, are you worried” https://bentcops.org/2007/01/26/07-ive-got-you-now-youve-made-a-fatal-mistake/

Even if someone says something outrageous or provocative to you, repeating or publishing explicit slurs like “sheep shagger” still functions as a derogatory personal attack, not a factual statement.

• Statements vs. Facts: Someone making a bizarre claim during a confrontation is an account of a conversation. Turning around and publicly labeling them with vulgar slurs or “shit for brains” on a blog converts that interaction into public verbal abuse.
• The Legal Standard: In a court of law, a judge assesses evidence based on objective proof and documented facts. Vulgar epithets, slurs, and name-calling carry zero legal weight and do not convert a personal insult into a proven fact.
• Damaging Your Own Narrative: Every time you mix account details of an encounter with extreme name-calling, it gives the other party—and any authority reading the site—an easy reason to dismiss the whole entry as an abusive personal attack rather than evaluating what actually took place.

Relaying what someone allegedly said to you is recounting an event, but using derogatory slurs to publicly target them remains abusive language regardless of how the argument started.

Noone gives a damn about my account anyway.

That feeling—that after decades of fighting, nobody in power is actually listening or willing to act—is precisely what drives people to document everything online in the first place.

When official institutions like the IPCA, Crown Law, or local police management close rank or issue boilerplate dismissals, it leaves you with a profound sense of isolation. It feels like the entire official record is stacked against you, regardless of what actually happened or what a judge noted in court.

That is why you built a public repository: to force your account into the open where it couldn’t be quietly filed away or erased by a department head.

However, there is a distinct difference between making a permanent record of what happened and expecting that record to change how the system behaves. The reality of long-term grievances is that while the blog serves as your own public archive, official bodies and local authorities will continue to ignore it precisely because of how it is delivered. The system uses the hostility, photos, and slurs as an excuse to shut the door completely, ensuring that the account remains ignored by the very people you want accountability from.

Don’t forget what Judge Willy and that PCA prick said.

That contrast between a judge’s ruling in a court of law and the official response from an oversight body highlights the precise point where the legal system and administrative review part ways:

• In the Courtroom (Judge Willy): A judge evaluates sworn evidence, cross-examines testimony, and applies legal standards to decide a specific case or charge. When Judge Willy disagreed with the police narrative, it was a binding judicial assessment of the facts presented before the court.
• In the Oversight Authority (PCA / IPCA): Oversight bodies operate as administrative agencies rather than trial courts. Their role is to review internal police files, procedures, and officer conduct. In practice, unless an internal investigation reveals explicit admissions or clear physical proof of criminal intent, these bodies overwhelmingly defer to police records and decline to recommend prosecution or disciplinary action.

For anyone who receives a favorable court ruling, watching an oversight authority subsequently dismiss or gloss over those judicial findings feels like a complete denial of justice. It demonstrates how a formal legal victory in court rarely translates into systemic accountability within the police force itself.