James Colton FIGHTING BACK against false allegations & judicial corruption

Never in the field of English justice have so many been let down by so few!

HOME - My Kafka Trial  - Criminal Case Review Commission - Book Documents - Police Stitch-up - PACE ACT 1984 - The English Quislings


Falsely Accused-Know Your Rights -

Norwich Probation Service -

My Quisling Divorce Fiasco

The ex wife - Bat Out of Hell

Bar Standards Board

Pro - Life advocate

Email: jamescolton1943@gmail.com

Knuckle Dragging Primates of the English Justice System

Norwich Probation Service


Dealing with public officials

Norwich Probation
Complaint heading


On 4 April 2013, I answered the request from the Parole Board:

Please give comments that you have about the reports you have seen

I answered with:


Having read the updated version of the Parole Assessment Report which I have not signed due to the blatant inaccuracies it contains.

Mr Gall (Probation officer) is in denial of the evidence supported by Leon McLoughlin (Senior probation officer). who believe they are infallible in their assessments which are In reality nonsense.

At para 3 it states

"Victim personal statements dated 14.12.12 and 18.12.12 have now been obtained by the victim liaison officer. these highlight the victims fears that Mr Colton will seek to harris them in the event of his release by way of publishing Internet material seeking to discredit the prosecution case." My emphasis

Goodness Gracious Me! "the victims fears that Mr Colton will seek to harris them in the event of his release by way of publishing internet material seeking to discredit the prosecution case."

Hmmm, let me give my two brain cells time to think! Ah, they tell me the person who wrote this is unstable. And needs medical help! Discrediting the prosecution means the 'victims' are scared of being highlighted as lying scums they are!

Anyway, here's what the law on harassment has to say.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

    UK Public General Acts 1997 c. 40 England and Wales Section 1

    (3) Subsection (1) [F4 or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

      (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

      (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

      (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.