What's your version of events? Would you give me what you think has happened here? Corruption in this case entirely because truth is not occurring in this room. I don't say you are lying. I'm saying truth is not occurring. This video contains the interview of a man who has repeatedly breached the restraining orders against him. Brian Peed was a counselor working for an agency for vulnerable youth who was convicted in 2010 of offering to pay a 14 year old girl, 300 pounds for sex. However, the teen turned out to have been an undercover police officer. Peed later claimed his actions had been undertaken in the name of research. The judge presiding over the case, did not buy his version of events. Peed was placed on the sex offender's register, prevented by a sexual offenses prevention order from being in contact with children and had to attend a community sex offenders treatment program. In November, 2011, Peed was convicted of harassing his daughter and granddaughter. At that time, he was issued a restraining order, preventing him from contacting them. However, he breached the order multiple times. And in 2015 was remanded in custody due to several concerns, the likelihood that he might abscond, the likelihood that he would reoffend and the possibility that he might interfere with witnesses. The court was also concerned about Peed’s past failures to obey court orders. The time is 1101. It's the 16th of October, 2017. We are in an interview room here at Romney Police Station. My name is DC Stanford. I'm with the Community Safety Unit at Betsy Police Station of Officer. Present is? Nancy Burns, CSU at Betsy. Thank you. I'm interviewing. Can you give me your full name and current date of birth, please? Yeah, Brian Peed. 12/6/53. Thank you. Mr. Pete. Ms. Speed. I know you are caught into the time of arrest, but because this is the police interview, I'll have to caution you again now, okay? Yeah, sure. That caution is, you do not have to say anything, but you may harm defense if you do not mention in question sent you later on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Okay? I know you've been interviewed before, but I have to break it down, so I'll break it down to three parts as I do with everyone. No problem. First part's very simple. I'm going to ask you as a series of questions here today. It's your legal right, whether you choose to answer them or not, okay? Of course. Second part, if this matter is to have go to court you're likely to be asked the same questions there that I'm going to ask you today. If you either choose not to answer my questions today or any answers you give, don't match any future answers you give. So basically your two stories don't match up, the court allowed to draw what's called a negative inference. What that means is it can be look badly upon yourself as to why you either didn't answer my questions today or why you're two sets of answers don't match up. Does that part make sense? -Of course. Entirely. -Perfect. Third part, as I said, the interview's being recorded at the moment. We've got microphones on the wall and cameras on the scene I've pointed out, okay. Again, if this matter was go to court, it can either be played like a DVD. So basically someone can sit and watch us or it can be transcribed. Someone can write down a conversation, it can read out any statement format. Does that all make sense? -Of course. -Perfect. Thank you sir. DC Stanford thoroughly explains everything that is happening to Peed. Peed is almost condescending in his replies. Distraught Parker Bell fire the 40 caliber pistol into the floor, sending the room, which included several civilians into a panic as people duck for cover. Throughout your time in custody, you have the right to free an independent legal advice or if you don't have a solicitor here present at the moment, are you happy to continue with that one? I'm not happy, but I shall continue without one. Okay. You understand that at any point during this interview you can stop and will you get your solicitor free of charge? Yeah, 100%. I understand that. Thank you very much. Okay. No problems at all. Quick welfare check, are you feeling fit healthy today? Very tired, because I was transported down at three in the morning, so between three and six. Didn't sleep. I didn't sleep at all. And so I'm still very tired. But not to worry. Have you got any medical illnesses that were [crosstalk] this interview today? No. At all none whatsoever. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Peed. Right Mr. Peed, before I ask you any questions about why we're here today, allow me to explain it to make sure it's clear. Okay? You’ve been arrested for a breach restraining order. The allegation is that on the 29th of September this year, which is a Friday on a website that's listed down as www.lambethchildabuse.org you posted an open letter to your member parliament. In that you named several people that a restraining order issued by the inner London Crown Court on the 14th of August, 2015 prevented you from doing so. Okay. Now before I ask you about the matter, because I'm sure you've got a version of events to tell us, is it clear what we're going to discuss today? Yes. I think you've made it clear. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you Mr. Peed. Mr. Peed, the easiest way is what's your version of events? Would you give me what you think has happened here? Well, I don't really wish to make any other statement other than I wish to report officially on the record corruption in this case entirely. So I'm afraid that that is my version of events. So it is not basically what you are going to want to hear, but I'm afraid that is the truth. So that is it in effect, it's quite simple. There is corruption that has gone on in this case, I've been able to prove that corruption. I have informed several people, including the home secretary, including my member of parliament, including I believe the director of public prosecutions about corruption that occurred on that date in August, 2015 that you read out. -I forget the exact date. -14Th. 14th. Thank you. So 14th of August, 2015, there was corruption in that case. I reinvestigated that case on my own because I knew the police wouldn't, and consequently I uncovered corruption. So it's quite simple, I'm afraid that... ...restraining order that was allegedly issued on the 14th of August, 2015 is in fact bogus and has no legal weight at all. Because what you'll find, sir, is that Lord Denning has gone on the record many, many times that nobody, not even a member of parliament, can in fact keep any advantage he or she has gained through any kind of fraudulent activity. Well, you see in this trial that you referred to August, 2015, a colleague of yours called DC Zia claimed that he had gone to Bexley Grammar School to pick up a card that I had allegedly sent to my two granddaughters who attend the school. Well, in June of this year, I went to Bexley grammar school and met with the head teacher, and he said that the police have never been to that school at all in relation to my granddaughters. Of course, the police have been to that school. -They go to every school. -Yeah. But not in relation to my granddaughter. It was completely different. So he said the whole thing is bogus. It did not happen. The card never reached the school. Well, as you can imagine that was of great significance because he committed perjury because at the trial he said to the court that he had gone to the school and he had met with the school secretary and others to pick up the card while either he's lying or the head teachers lying. And I don't see any reason for the head teacher to lie. And so after my meeting with the head teacher, I sent an affidavit to him that I wrote out asking him to sign. I've not yet got that back because it could have been sent back to me, but I don't always get all of my mail. But that's another issue we don't need to discuss right now, although it is of significance. So he committed perjury, perjury Act 1911, you'll be familiar with, and consequently, that's a fraudulent trial. And equally, in 2011, the first 1st of November, Bexley magistrates 1st of November, 2011 that has got corruption all over that case as well. DC Stanford allows Peed to speak at length and make his accusations. Pete claims there is corruption involved in every case that concerns him, which may point to paranoia. So I could go into more detail if you would like me to. It's mainly going to be around the 2015 case. I thought it would be, because you see that's how the law works. Is it narrows it down to try to find you guilty not to actually find you innocent. So you see the 2015 case was built on the 2011 case. Well, I'll have to refer to Denon again I'm afraid you cannot build something on nothing. So the 2011 case was wrong, was rotten to the core. If you're going to build a case 2015 on that, that's also rotten to the core. And then to it DC Zia has in fact committed perjury. Okay. So... I'm going to ask you a couple questions in more depth in a second, but, so just so I get your explanation correct, what you're telling me is as far as you are concerned, the court case that issued that restraining order didn't have the power to issue it to you. Correct? It can't do, and I've checked this out with my MP, who's also a barrister in QC, and we've discussed this at great length. And on the 27th of January this year, this would be 2017, 27th of January at the Knights Hill Hotel, in a constituency meeting with an investigative author there present Mr. Bellingham, Sir Henry Bellingham, my MP and barrister said to me, it is clear that you cannot be guilty of any of the convictions against you. And any solicitor would be able to see that straight away. And he also referred to my unlawful dismissal at Lamberth when I was a head teacher there. And he said, you are, you know about that. Yeah. I read both your read websites this morning actually. Oh, okay. Well, consequently he also referred to my dismissal at Lamberth as being unlawful, which he clearly was. And that's it really, sir. Did you say DC Stanford? Stanford yeah. Yeah. Much obliged. Thank you. So DC Stanford, that's it really. That's all I really have to say on the matter. Okay. Because it's very serious. As you'll appreciate when I have to inform a police colleague that one of his, in your case one of his colleagues is committed perjury, and it's demonstrable perjury. It's not me saying it. All we have to do is go along and interview the head teacher and he'll say, yes, the police never came to my school. Those girls have never received a card that was allegedly sent to their school, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. So, as I said, as far as you are concerned, the 14th of August, 2015, the court case in London Crown as far as you're concerned, had no legal back into it. So, can I make assumptions, I don’t know whether I do it, but can I assume that means, as far as your concerned, that restraining order is invalid? Yes. I've spoken many times with, again, my MP on this matter, and he's agreed that the restraining order has no validity in law. Okay. Couple of questions I have to ask him. Please don't think I'm doing it to frustrate your wife too, for obviously [inaudible]. Were you aware of the conditions, whether you agree with the order or not? Were you aware of the conditions of that restraining order issued on the 14th of August, 2015? Were you ever served a copy? I think at this point I'll take my legal advice and say that I'll make no comment. Okay. No problem. Hope you appreciate... I took the legal advice from myself. You understand what I'm saying? No. And I hope you understand. I'm still going to ask you a few questions, but if that’s… No, I understand completely. So, just to re-ask that question, to make sure it's clear for the [inaudible]. Were you ever made aware of the conditions of the restraining order from the 14th of August, 2015? No comments, sir. Okay. Can I just check? Because I did have a good read of it this morning. Along with both the websites actually. On the, I don’t want to make a mistake, let me show if that's right. So I had to look at the www.lambchildabuse.org website. And on it dated Friday, the 29th, September, 2017, it is an article under latest news heading that's written down. Brian Peed hand delivers letter to MP Henry Benham. And I've had a good read. I'm not going to read it without acquisitions, so it's quite a long letter. Can I just ask, were you the author of this letter? So are you asking me if I wrote a letter to my MP? Yes. The actual article on the website? Is that your letter? It is signed from Bryan, Pete. But I want to ask, is that the letter that you wrote? Were you the author of that letter or did someone write it on your behalf? The letter itself I wrote. -You did. -Of course. So the one that starts, dear Sir Henry, an open letter, I trust you are well, and he goes, so you were the author of that letter? I wrote to my MP for sure. I'm always writing to my MP. Yes. So I found a couple of letters like that. Just out of interest, it says it's an open letter. Was it only published on that website? Did you actually post him or say hand deliver even. Did you actually hand him the letter as well? Yes, it was hand delivered to his house. To his house. Okay. Was it by yourself? -Oh yeah. Oh yeah, by me. -Super. And was that before or after September the 29th? Did he go on website first or did you hand deliver it first? I do believe it must have been sent, given to him first because I wouldn't then have been able to say it was hand delivered. Perfect. Okay. Okay. I'm just going to read out. These are the conditions placed upon the, it's called a protection from harassment order, but a restraining order. It's dated down, issued by the inner London Crown Court on 14th of 2015. So this one here. Now, please don't get me wrong, I appreciate you saying that the restraining order is invalid, but hope you appreciate it. I've got to read the conditions out. It's got two conditions down on it. It says you're not to contact directly or indirectly, Paul Sorl, Emily Lauren and Joseph Birch, or go to Millville Road, Seek up Kent, or publishing or ranging to have published by another person, whether on the internet or on paper, whether true or untrue. Any information referring to Paul Sorrow, Emily, Lauren and Joseph Birch. Okay. I know I've asked, I will double check. Were you ever served with those conditions that you remember? Again, no comment. No problems. Okay. Have you got original? Sorry, it just purely I highlighted something. Thank you. I'm just going into the letter, which is a direct print of the website. And I make note there's a couple of referrals. I'll read one paragraph out. As we have discussed for the Bexley magistrate's court to determined according to law in this case, my daughter Sorl Birch and elder granddaughter Emily Birch. Do you remember writing that part? Well I will clearly have mentioned my daughter and grandchildren, of course, but I don't know the context of what the rest of that sentence was. That was an incomplete sentence. I'll read the rest. I'll read the rest of it. -Don't feel you have to, don't worry. -No, it's, it's not a problem. Okay. So, let me read the whole paragraph again. So, as we have discussed for the Bexley Magistrates Court to determine according to law in this case, my daughter Sorl Birch and elder granddaughter Emily Birch, we've had to made complaints to police. They would've had to have investigated the complaint. My family members would have had to have made apologize official statements, and they would have had to have appeared at court against me since none of these ordinary and lawful procedures took place be Bexley magistrate's court could not have determined according to law. Okay. That's a paragraph that that's included in. I'll go a bit further along. I'm not going to read these out all the way need to, but there's further referrals to Emily. Obviously there's a paragraph here that's quite heavily covered by Emily because it discusses the letter at the school and DC zero and things like that. And obviously it's referral to Sorl as well as mother. Okay. Now obviously, in my view, and this is solely in my view, based on the evidence I have in front of me. It appears to me that you have breached the conditions of a restraining order because you published on the internet documentation that refers to people that according to the in London Crown Court restraining or you were not allowed to. Would you agree or disagree with me on that? Well, I would disagree. For two reasons. One reason is I never said I published anything on the internet. I said I authored a letter which I delivered to my MP. Secondly, I'm absolutely concerned, really seriously concerned that a detective constable in a metropolitan police force can be told of perjury in a case in which a bogus restraining, I say bogus, you would disagree, in which a bogus restraining order is issued for me. You see, I'm old school, I'm 64 now. Peed continues to insist that there is no validity to the restraining order and that the accusations against him are a result of corruption. Now, I'm very old school and consequently being old school, if a member of the public tells me that in a trial a policeman has committed perjury, alarm bells should be ringing. And therefore any assumptions you therefore make, like you just have that you've read this, there's a piece of paper that says there's an order. Oh, you must be guilty. That's dangerous. Dangerous thinking. That's Orwellian dystopian society we live in, right? You may not understand what I'm saying. You don't have to. Yeah, I know. Your focus to me should have been all, let's stop there. Let's explore your claim, which I said was official complaint. I specifically used those words for the tape. My official complaint is against DC Zia of perjury against the 1911 Perjury Act. I've then given you other evidence from Steven Elphic, the head teacher of Bexley Grammar School, who confirmed yes, indeed the police had never been to his school. And yet here we are now, and this is no disrespect to you. I've got to say what I've got to say. I never bring personalities into it. So here we are now I'm sitting here and I've got two people against me. So I'm already outnumbered. I know all the issue about, I could have somebody. Don't worry about that. And here you are pursuing a line of questioning, which is so narrow as to be, I argue, unlawful in itself because I've already thrown a spanner in the works to your reasoning that there is a letter I sent to my MP. You've got an internet post and you've got a piece of paper that says it's a restraining order. You've put one plus one plus one equals guilty. Well, I'm afraid real life isn't like that. And if it's a paper exercise that the police want to do, yet again to find me guilty, that's fine. You know? No problem. You say you've been on my two websites was the other website Justiceforbrianpeed.com? And did you read on there, did you see on there a copy of my latest book that I'm in production of writing, which is called blueprint for Abuse and State Controlled Child Abuse? No, I think I've got as far as 10 weeks, 12 prisons. 10 prisons 12 weeks. The other way round. Sorry, it's one of those way round. I remember the numbers. No, but it's very good. Thank you. So, yes. So I'm going to say to you, DC Stanford, that in with the greatest respect, you have a job to do, and you are paid civil servant, in effect, public servant. I understand that. Not a problem. You got bills to pay, mortgage, perhaps wife and kids, I don't know. Doesn't matter. The thing is, I don't really want to engage in this interview any further based on the fact that I have given you demonstrable corruption and perjury and that, and you haven't, because you see, you mentioned the date of the 23rd of September, 2011. I haven't. Well, I have, you mentioned Emily. So I'm giving you the date of the 23rd of September, 2011 when I was arrested, having written letters to the home secretary, et cetera. And my beloved Emily, who was only 12 years old, was used as a decoy to have me arrested and put me in Bel Marsh. Right? And they thought they were doing a clever thing by saying she was a witness in a trial. She'd never been a witness in any trial. So that needs to be sorted. I'm hearing, what I'm hearing today is fills me with dread because truth is not occurring in this room. I don't say you are lying. I'm saying truth is not occurring because you are trying to put together a false proposition based on false documents. Well, anyone can do that. Anyone can make any proposition. I like, you know, I could call you a murderer and write some pieces of paper that proves you're a murderer to make you a murderer. It's false proposition. So at the end of the day, sir, I'm afraid that needs to be investigated. Why Emily was used as a decoy. Although peed is able to articulate his points rather well, he skates around the fact that both his daughter and granddaughter uphold the accusations against him. And they have no reason to lie. And it also needs to be investigated. Why? When I went to Teapot Island in Mainstone in March of this year and then two days, three or four days later, I wrote to the commissioner, a commissioner Dick. I had gone to Teapot Island to give my in-laws, my daughter's in-laws, all information about my innocence, including a letter from Sir Henry Bellingham, saying, Brian Peed is innocent. And a number of a victim of a number of miscarriages of justice. I gave that to my son-in-law's parents. Three days later I wrote to Commissioner Dick. Two to three days after that I get arrested and another bogus charge. To be honest with you, the rule of law doesn't really apply in this country anymore. Certainly not to me. I cannot get a fair trial. Because if I told you everything about this case, you wouldn't believe me. But I'll tell you that we are in Bromley for a reason because the woman who was head of Lamberth, Phyllis Dunopace, OBE, who ratified my unlawful dismissal, is a co-director of a company of a magistrate in Bromley called Daphne Wickham. -Look it up on the internet company. -I’ve read it through. You will. -Yeah. So I'm afraid to say DC Stanford, that I'm not in this room here today anything to do with the breach of a restraining order. I'm in here to do, only to do with the fact that I am, if you want to call it this way, I'm an author, of books related to child abuse for my own personal reason. I was abused as a child in a children's home. I got away with it lightly compared with my brother, who was eight or nine and was bugged regularly by police officers, by priests and everything else. Right? So that's my motivation, right? So I will expose everything I can to my dying breath about organized abuse. And if you've been on my website, you'll see another book there, not written by me, written by a journalist in Ireland called Bruce Arnold. And he wrote about all the schools and homes in Ireland. He called it the Irish Gole. Gole is a word for prison. -In Russian. -Right? Yes. And so, consequently, Mr. Stanford, I'm afraid to say I've tried on some very powerful toes, which is why I'm here. You are just being used as a pawn and your colleague next to you is also being used as a pawn. You may not see that. I don't expect you will, but there's a much, much bigger backstory to this than you realize. And I've now got that on the tape and that'll do me. Okay? There’s no, you need to drag this out. I don't need to, but there's just a couple of questions I want to ask you. Obviously whether you choose to answer this is not a problem. So obviously we've said that you wrote that letter, that one's not up for dispute. You did raise a point, which I'm going to ask you directly about Now. Were you the person who posted that article on the website? I'm not prepared to say. No comment. Okay. No problems sir. Are you one of the admins for that website? Do you have editorial control? -Again no comment. -Okay. Does anyone else have editorial control? No comment. Okay. Does anyone else post either under their own name or under your name? -No comment. -Okay. Are you aware of everything that’s placed upon that website? Well, of course not because, you know, how do I know something’s not being put on there right now while I’m in this room with you? So I can’t be always aware, can I? It’s impossible. No, that’s the nature of a website. I noticed there is a comment section, obviously that can be accessed by any member of public, but the actual main content, these letters, is there anyone else that has access to post other than yourself? Yes. Okay. But are you aware of all the main parts? Not the comments. I wouldn’t expect you to be aware of that, but the actual post that go on the website, are you aware of everything that goes up? I’m aware of the ones I write, of course. Okay. So you are aware that this letter went up onto the website on the 29th of September? Well, it’s on there, isn’t it? You’ve seen it, it’s there on the internet. Okay. What sort of internet access do you have? Do you work from a home office? No, I don’t have the internet at home. I don’t want it at home. Okay. Okay. Well, I’m going to be very specific. I know you’ve answered them, but I’m going to be specific to the point whether you agree with it or not, were you aware of the restraining order issued by in line at Crown Court on 14th August, 2015? No, I’m not going to answer that question, Mr. Stanford. Based on the fact that it’s quite clear where this is going, it’s quite clear that you want to incriminate me in a breach of a restraining order so that A, can be imprisoned and B, that the authorities as they like to call themselves, though they have no authority over me, I’m quite capable of managing my own life. I’m sure you can. That the authorities like to pretend that there is a restraining order in place. After refusing to comment on a string of questions, Peed can’t quite resist being condescending to DC Stanford by telling him he knows exactly what the police are trying to do to him. He makes it sound like quite a grandiose scheme rather than just a simple matter of breaching a restraining order. Right. And also what fills me with dread is you actually said that you read out the piece that neither my daughter nor granddaughter Emily, had ever given evidence against me on the 1st of November, 2011 at the Bexley Magistrate’s Court. And never made a complaint to the police, never made a witness statement, never turned up in court. Well again, they should feel you with dread actually you should be saying to yourselves or even saying to me, well, hang on a minute, how can that even possibly happen? Because it’s against the rule of law. But I don’t hear these things from you guys anymore. You see, when I went to see Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll, he’s on the website. He was a former child protection officer for Lamberth. He told me, of course you can’t be guilty. Of course you can’t be guilty of any sexual offense. You cannot be guilty of the criminal damage of impersonating a barrister, which they’d done before. All sorts of nonsense. And of course, harassment of my own family can’t be guilty, he said. So how does a detective, chief inspector, how does an MP and a QC tell me you can’t possibly be guilty? And then I find that I have two guys in here doing everything they can to try and find me guilty. You see, that only says to me, Mr. Stanford, sorry to, I saw you going to interject, but that only says to me that the government, whoever you like, is still pursuing this course of conduct against me. And when I met DCI Driscoll 2015, two years ago, two and a half years ago, because it was March, he said to me, I can tell you because I’ve now left the Met. I can tell you that the Met is persecuting you. His word, not mine. You are flagged up. He says, a very dangerous man, not because of anything you’ve done, because of what you write about. Well, I’m afraid, sir, that if that’s a society we live in today, where you can be dangerous because you’re exposing corruption and child abuse at the highest levels. Well, I think that’s a very sad state of affairs, quite frankly. Okay. Two last questions then I’m completely done. Again, I, I know I’ve asked him both before, but, so I’m very specific. Are you aware of the conditions upon that order? -Again. No comment. -Okay. And in your view, and this isn’t, in your view, isn’t no object to this one. In your view, are you guilty of breaching a restraining order? Absolutely not. Perfect. Sorry, please. I’m sorry. When you so… Oh no, I’ll do with that later on. Can I just, sorry, when you… Go for it. When the lady, I forget your name. Was it Mrs. Burns? No, it’s DC Burns. DC Burns. Can you say what your role was please? Because I didn’t catch it. I’m slightly hard hearing. Co interview. But I thought you gave a role within the... Oh, I’m a DC in CSG at Bexley. It’s the Community Safety Unit, our department. Thank you. Basically you to allow me to talk to you and not be writing down all the time. Oh, no, no, I get that. I get that. I just wanted to get that for… Same department. Okay. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Peed, before I conclude this interview, is there anything I’ve said that’s not clear that you want me to repeat? No, I think you’ve been clear enough, but I’m going to have to repeat myself that I find this a very disturbing interview. From the point of view that I have now given you several problems around this case because another one of course is a commander of [inaudible]. Can I just hold you just one second. I’m aware of the allegations you are making against the chief superintendent, DC Zia and things like that. My understanding is all of these complaints have already been made. You’ve obviously already made them to your own investigation. -They’ve never been investigated. -But you’ve already made them. They’ve never been investigated. Okay. What I’m saying though is if you’ve already made the complaint… They’ve never been officially made to the police. Seeing that there will be no real progress in this interview. DC Stanford brings it to a close. You made to the MP. Yeah. What’s he going to do with it? The MP straight to the police. Well, you’d think so. He’s never given me any indication he’s done that. Nothing in writing. Nothing verbally. So there’s an issue there. Brian Peed was found guilty on all three counts of breaching a restraining order. Thank you for watching. If you like this type of content and want to support the channel, there is a Patreon link in the description below. You’ll be able to watch videos with zero ads and some that are too controversial for YouTube and you’ll be supporting the channel at the same time. Thanks again for sticking around and I’ll see you in the next video.