It's A Criminal Offence For Me To even buy a mixtape CD from Tesco's, HMV, Woolworth's etc
The authorities claimed that it's a criminal offence for me to sell the same mixtape CD's that were selling at my local supermarkets and high street.
They also claimed in a taped telephone call with BPI Anti Piracy investigator Mr Simon Sanett on 9th June 2006 that it's a criminal offence for me to even purchase a mixtape CD from HMV, Tesco's, Woolworths etc, which is ludicrous. Although they claimed that these mixtape CD's are illegal for me to buy or sell, instead of removing them from HMV etc and arresting their directors, the authorities conducted a major cover up instead and allowed them to profit from what they called criminal activity.
When I asked the authorities why HMV, Tesco's etc are selling these mixtape CD's if they are supposed to be illegal, the BPI revealed in a taped telephone call that it's because no one has made a complaint about HMV, Tesco's etc.
As such, complaints were made to Richmond Trading Standards, Scotland Yard & the BPI regarding the sale of these mixtapes CD's in HMV, Tesco's, Virgin Megastores, Woolworths & Play.com as I didn't want others to fall into the same trap of believing that these CD's are legitimate from the fact that they are selling in most music stores and supermarkets.
The BPI confirmed in writing that HMV are subject to a formal criminal investigation by the Trading Standards Service (click here for exhibit).
However, the so called “formal criminal investigation by the Trading Standards Service” consisted of no one actually investigating the retail giants. Instead the Trading Standards Service failed in their duty to conduct a formal investigation into the retail giants and safeguarded them from a criminal investigation.
Why are these Retail Giants allowed to sell these CD's if they are illegal?
Tesco's Tipped Off Who Complained About Them
On 26 June 2006, Richmond Trading Standards claimed that they had referred our complaints onto the revelant Trading Standards departments. Further investigations revealed that our complaint against Tesco was not in fact sent to the Trading Standards department responsible for Tesco, but in fact was sent directly to Tesco's Head Office for Tesco to see with their own eyes who made the complaint against them. (letter attached - Hertfordshire Trading Standards address is actually Tesco's Head Office address circa 2006)
Hertfordshire Trading Standards subsequently confirmed that they did not receive the original complaint from Richmond Trading Standards as Richmond Trading Standards mistakenly sent to the complaint to an incorrect address. (click here for exhibit)
So you make a complaint against Tesco's alleging that they are selling thousands of illegal CD's, illegal according to the BPI & The Trading Standards Service, and the Trading Standards Service investigate the complaint by breaching the data protection act by sending private and confidential information containing my mother's and my personal details direct to Tesco's Head office.
When I asked why my company was raided, I was informed by the Trading Standards that they had received a complaint from a member of the public and they said by law they are not at liberty to reveal the complainant's identity.
However, in my case, the Trading Standards did the complete opposite by sending my mother's personal details as well as my own details to Tesco's Head office.
Cover Up - No One Was Actually Investigating HMV & Tesco's etc
Richmond Trading Standards confirmed in writing that Westminster Trading Standards were investigating HMV. (click here for exhibit)
However, Westminster Trading Standards totally contradicted this by confirming in writing that Richmond Trading Standards are the actually investigating HMV. (click here for exhibit)
This information was presented back to Richmond Trading Standards who once again confirmed that they are not investigating HMV and that Westminster Trading Standards are the actual investigating authority. (click here for exhibits) As such, as both Trading Standards authorities were repeatedly refusing to take ownership of the investigation, this so-called “formal criminal investigation” as described by the BPI, consisted of no one actually investigating HMV.
Similarly, our complaints against Tesco's consisted of no one actually investigating the retail giant. Richmond Trading Standards confirmed in writing that our complaints had been sent to Hertfordshire Trading Standards for Hertfordshire Trading Standards to investigate Tesco's for selling illegal CD's. (click here for exhibit)
However, Hertfordshire Trading Standards completely contradicted this and confirmed that the only Trading Standards authority who could investigate Tesco's is Richmond Trading Standards. Hertfordshire Trading Standards Senior Trading Standards Officer Mr Cain revealed in a taped telephone conversation that "when a criminal offence has been committed, that criminal offence must be investigated by the authority in which the offence has taken place, which would be Richmond. The only legal authority that could prosecute or take action against the likes of HMV & Tesco's are Richmond as the alleged criminal offences took place in Richmond." As such, Hertfordshire Trading Standards were not investigating Tesco's. (click here for exhibit)
It was a vicious circle as Richmond Trading Standards continually maintained that they were not investigating Tesco's and confirmed that Hertfordshire Trading Standards were the investigating authority.
Complaints were raised to the highest level, and even the Chief Executive of Richmond Upon Thames Council Mrs Gillian Norton confirmed in writing that enforcement rests with the other authorities, not Richmond Council. (click here for exhibit)
As a result, this left no one actually investigating the retail giants.
Over five complaints were also sent to the Police Commissioner at Scotland Yard, however, even the Police ignored our complaints and failed to investigate allegations of criminal activity.
As for me, my business, my livelihood that I put my heart and soul into was taken away in the course of one day. The law must be the same for everyone and there cannot be one law for Tesco & HMV and another law for me.
HMV knowingly Profited from what the authorities called criminality
Although, no authority would take responsibility for the investigation into HMV, it seemed that HMV were advised that they were selling CD’s that were not considered to be lawful by the authorities. Following our complaints, the majority of mixtape CD’s advertised on HMV’s website stated “Do Not Stock – Legal Requirement” next to the name of the CD.
This demonstrates that HMV were fully aware that the CD’s had legal issues surrounding them. However, despite stating “Do Not Stock – Legal Requirement” next to the name of the CD’s, HMV still continued to sell these CD’s. (click here for exhibit)
In my case, the authorities raided my home, arrested me and seized my entire companies’ stock without any warning or explanation and in the instance of HMV, the authorities allowed HMV to sell off most of their stock of mixtape CD’s instead of arresting their directors and seizing their stock.
It is highly unlikely that HMV were not aware that the CD’s had legal issues surrounding them as the mixtape CD’s on their website clearly stated “Do Not Stock - Legal Requirement” next to the name of the CD’s. This could be visibly seen by the general public as well as their staff. Furthermore, I made numerous test purchases of mixtape CD’s from HMV, and even on the invoice of the test purchases, it states the name of the CD followed by "Do Not Stock - Legal Requirement". (click here for exhibit)
Nine Years Later & HMV Are Still Selling Mixtape CD's
Nine years on and I can still prove that there is one law for the retail giants and another law for me as HMV are still selling mixtape CD's. A notice of publication was sent to the Trading Standards, the BPI, HMV & Tesco's to see if they have any issues or objections to this publication and to provide them with their right of reply. Only Tesco's responded to confirm that they are neither in favour or against my publication. (click here for exhibit)