I’m documenting a concerning pattern: despite a young relative’s explicit consent, family support was blocked during his pre-charge process. Police refused to answer questions, ignored his written consent, and let a solicitor that wasn’t formally acting take over. This is a serious flaw in the system.
Entry 8
I’m documenting a sequence of police contacts (22–23 Jan 2026) where:
• welfare was confirmed in writing
• written communication was explicitly requested
• verbal contact was repeatedly pressured
• “AI-generated chat” was cited to refuse written engagement
• officers attended outside my home without notice
No new crime was reported. This related to a Clare’s Law application with historic events already reported around year ago.
Full factual log here: https://targetedintheuk.substack.com/p/entry-8-written-only-boundaries-welfare
Record update — Entry 6
Health timeline recorded for a younger family member (past ~12 months).
Progressive decline, physical and psychological symptoms, no completed investigations as of 06.01.2026.
Police intervention noted as a temporal event.
Full record available.
https://open.substack.com/pub/targetedintheuk/p/entry-6-health-summary-of-a-younger
Record update — Entry 7
Digital timeline recorded: password reset emails referencing an Instagram account that is not mine, observed after device seizure.
Factual record only.
Full entry available.
Record update — Entry 7
Digital timeline recorded: password reset emails referencing an Instagram account that is not mine, observed after device seizure.
Factual record only.
Full entry available.
Record update — Entry 3
Third-party device retention continues without a stated s.22 PACE basis, despite full cooperation and voluntary access.
Individualised necessity and proportionality remain unaddressed.
Full record updated.
https://open.substack.com/pub/targetedintheuk/p/entry-3-third-party-device-seizure
