You wait until you loose your job to make this public, sounds like a case of a disgruntled ex-employee to me.
Loosing your main job/income is upsetting for anyone. Here you must be careful what you say, or it can be used against you.
In one of the videos, you will see me walking passed him with his tester attached to a set tags (not very clear) frezze the video at that point.
Imputing that information on the BT/OPENREACH database will identify the customer. Time of customer call will also be on OPENREACH database & will also be on the customer bill. ..Match the time & date of video & you have your first victim who's call was breached.
In other words an investigation will put Video 2014 date & time/Block Tag Number/customer call bill & original Email together = victim.
The block & "tag" number alone identify the customer when imputed into BT/OPENREACH database and timing of the event does not really matter, as it is clear what is going on here, and the strange numbers of that file will match Email & customer bill when call is already in progress.
There's a maximum one hundred tags per block for that type, and not all one hundred tags are always used. So to help find the customer/victim you can also check how many calls were active at that time on that block, this will also help identify customer. This method could also be used on 2013 file, if investigation is done correctly.
Email & Video time will not be absolute, as I have to stop & walk away from my main work area and go to my computer to send Email, but the date do match year 2014 only.
NOTE: video files year 2013 date was never release until now and does not match repeated Email sent, it was withheld by me due to court matter.
Met Police just need to check their file on me 2012/2013 their will find a exhibit. This exhibit is not in their possession, their just have to read that file carefully and from there, their will find an exhibit not in their possession. The 2013 video files the Met Police did have this during an investigation, but was not aware their had this 2013 video files. These files was also in court, but because it was not case related it was never revealed.
The Email state "I first notices this about 8 months ago", well it should be pointing to the 2013 files. I did not check the date of that file when Email was sent, so this was a Estimated guess, but now we know what it is referring too (2013 video Files).