Information on complaining about the iPCC

Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

Dear Home Office,

Reference; Information on complaining about the iPCC

The British public are becoming more and more frightened at the
lack of activity of the iPCC to the extent that the iPCC LOOK just
like an extension of the police to protect police in relation to
their crimes. The newspaper articles cogently shows that iPCC are
not doing their job correctly and are just covering up for the
police. Given the hundred solicitors that have resigned and even
ex-members of the iPCC condemning the iPCC could you supply the
information that you hold on whom controls and investigates the
shortcomings of the iPCC and where a member of the public can ask
for an investigation into the iPCC.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Note my letter below
Preamble
Please note that xxxxxxxxxxxx expert that is new evidence that
proves that PC Heiniger, my old friend from the time I was a young
lad, is a liar. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx has worked for year with the police
prosecuting people therefore he must have been trusted by the
police in the past as a credible expert witness therefore he should
be trusted as an expert witness in my case and is supporting
allegations investigated in his report.

Heiniger 5 February 2010

Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXXX
IPCC
1st Floor, Oaklands House
Washway Road
Sale M33 6FS

Dear XXXXXXXXX

Ref; 2010/001470.

I have just received a letter from Detective Chief Inspector H
Jobson [Ref: HJ/CO/14/PW/CO36/10] saying that my complaint is
repetitions and therefore the police have asked for the complaint
to be dispensed with as the police have done with other people.
This reluctance to even start to investigate the new evidence that
I have secured despite the police’s best efforts to stop me
securing the evidence is precisely what I complaining about and
clear evidence of Northumbria police trying to conceal criminal
activities to negate embarrassment and criminal liability.
Furthermore, this situation shows why the police should not be
allowed to investigate themselves just like turkeys will never vote
for Christmas, foxes cannot be trusted with looking after the
chickens and the police will not admit that they are corrupt if
they can cover it. Natural justice dictates that everyone’s
complaint of the police and Guy Shorrock should be investigated in
totality by the same organisation that is independent.

My complaint about PC Heiniger needs to be read in conjunction with
my other complaints of the other witnesses that lied in my court
case and other people’s various complaints of Guy Shorrock and
Parkin. Furthermore, the XXXXXXXXXX expert report dated July 2009
needs to be read in context of my complaints and others people’s
complaints that confirm the strength of my complaints, throughout
the UK. In other words we cannot not all be independently making
the same complaints about the same situations for there not to be a
case to answer and a need for a criminal investigation in totality
of everyone’s complaint.

As I knew that PC Heiniger was not telling the truth in my case and
the fact that to date the police and the IPCC will not release
Shorrock’s Report done on me and the Police Report into my
complaint even though other people have been given their reports
without any trouble I commissioned the most experience expert in
the UK on bird related court cases to read the facts of my case
including the evidence on Heiniger so that he could write an expert
report. The man that wrote the expert report is called XXXXXXXX and
he has been used many times by the RSPB and the police to secure
convictions over many years. Conclusively, from XXXXXXXXX’s Report
you will note that Heiniger cannot be telling the truth moreover he
did not have a licence to disturb a peregrine falcon’s nest
therefore he could not have checked the contents of the nest in the
manner in claimed in court. I enclose XXXXXXXXX’s report in full
with my comments on in red. I can supply XXXXXXXX’s without my
comments if needed. Also note the Met Office report that shows
Heiniger is not telling the truth about the weather conditions and
light levels on the date in question therefore he has to be making
his statement up. I also want the statement from the second person
that was supposed to be watching the nest with Heiniger that has
been withheld as I believe this will contradict Heiniger. Needless
to say this withheld evidence is just one of many withheld
statements.

It should also be noted that the Kielder nest site that Shorrock,
Little and Heiniger claimed that I took two peregrine falcon chicks
from has a complete record over the years at the BTO [according to
Brian Little’s statement from 1975] except the 1992 record that I
needed to show how old the chicks were in the nest Kielder nest
site to compare the age of the claimed chicks in the Kielder nest
with the two imprint chicks found in my car 2.5 miles from my home
and to prove the fact that the Kielder nest contained eggs. Given
that the only year that was missing was the year that I needed,
even though like every other year Little kept the records for 1992
in his diary, there must have been a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice by concealing the 1992 records of the Kielder
nest site to stop me proving that the two peregrine falcons found
in my car were too old to have been taken from the Kielder nest
site about 40 miles from my home [Note Little has stated that the
records go back to 1975 when the nest site was first occupied by
peregrine falcons]. This matter of fact evidence that would be easy
for the police to investigate and it is new and relevant evidence.
It should also be born in mind that if Brian Little’s diary records
for 1992 for the Kielder nest site confirmed the age of the
peregrine falcon chicks were the same age as the falcon chicks
found in my car then it would have been used against me in court as
clear proof of my guilt. It is my contention that Little’s records
confirmed that my chicks were too old therefore Brian Little did
not even disclose his records to the BTO even though he had every
other year in precisely the same circumstances. The facts are
obvious to see and easy for the police to investigate by securing
Little’s 1992 diary and interviewing the witnesses involved. If you
see the You Tube link you will note it would not have been possible
for people to have climb down to the nest site from the top of the
crag without a rope which contradicts PC Heiniger’s statement.

http://www.youtube.c.../25/v8X93Ysqs-A

The two birds found in my car in 1992 had been DNA profiled with
the parent birds [the blood was sent to Parkin and he accepts that
he received it but that is it] however this DNA profiling was
withheld even though this is the only DNA profiling that I have
requested.

Please note the BTO email below and XXXXXXXXX’S reply.
From: derekcanning xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 08 January 2010 15:06
To: xxxxxx
Subject: BTO
Dear Derek

I have now received permission to release a summary of the nest
record data
that we have located for this particular nest to you. The
information is:

1993 record 1
Date: 3.4, Eggs: 2 , Young: 0 , Status: CO (eggs cold)
Date: 28.4, Eggs: 0, Young: 0, Status: EI (outcome failure,
intentionally by
man), Comment: eggs broken by humans.

1993 record 2
Date: 4.5, Eggs: 3, Young: 0, Status: MN (male at or on nest).
Comment:
Relay afer 1st clutch broken by humans.
Date: 25.5, Eggs: 4, Young: 0, Status: FN (female at or on nest).
Date: 27.5, Eggs: 0, Young: 0, Status: EI (Failure at egg stage -
man -
intentional). Comment: Eggs stolen by humans probably weekend 26/27
May.
1994
Date: 26.4, Eggs: 1, Young: 0, Status: CO (eggs cold). Comment:
this was a
relay 1st nest at this site previously robbed.
Date: 30/4, Eggs: 2, Young: 0, Status: FN (female at or on nest).
Date: 24/5, Eggs: 0, Young: 0; Status: EI (failure at egg stage -
man -
intentional) and FV (female in vicinity of nest). Comment: nest
robbed by
humans who left hard-boiled eggs in nest after they robbed it.

I have also received permission to release summary data from
Schedule 1
report forms. We have located two report forms relating to the
nest. The
information is:

1990
1st clutch robbed. 2nd clutch - 3 eggs, 3 young, fledged 30/7.

1991
1+ eggs, 0 young fledged, comment - robbed.

I attach a copy of our terms and conditions of data requests and an
invoice
for the data request of £50 +VAT as in my email of 17 December
2009.

Best wishes

Jacquie
********************************************************
Jacquie Clark
Head of Demography
Ringing & Nest Recording - explaining population change

BTO
The Nunnery
Thetford
Norfolk IP24 2PU

Email: [email address]
Phone: 01842 750050
Fax: 01842 750030

www.bto.org/aboutBTO/cvs/jacquie_clark.htm

Keep up with ringing and nest recording on the 'Demog Blog' at
http://btoringing.blogspot.com/

Report ringed birds online at www.ring.ac

BTO Website: www.bto.org

EURING website: www.euring.org

British Trust for Ornithology
Registered Charity No 216652 (England & Wales) No SC039193
(Scotland)
Company Limited by Guarantee No 357284 (England & Wales)

Registered Office The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU

See the latest trends in bird populations on www.bto.org/birdtrends

In a message dated 08/01/2010 17:45:37 GMT Standard
Time,xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks – much as we knew already.
Importantly, is she able to say why there is no record for 1992,
which on balance seems to have been no different from all the other
years.
We know what was said in police statements regarding 1992, but the
important question is ‘does that match what was said on the BTO or
English Nature forms’. In effect BTO have failed to answer the one
question that needs answering.
The lack of anything on paper is in itself quite suggestive of
something not adding up!
Cheers
xxxxxxxx

In support of what I have just said I will clearly state the
following:

1] I have now supplied a report from the most experienced bird
expert [xxxxxxxx] in the world that supports my claim that the
police and RSPB lied in my case especially PC Heiniger of Durham
Police.

2] XXXXXXXXX has been used as an expert witness by the police for
thirty or more years in hundreds of criminal cases therefore if
they have been happy to accept his evidence when it supported them
then they have to support his evidence when it condemn them and not
insult me by not even bothering to investigate what XXXXXXX has to
say about my case.

3] XXXXXXX is totally independent of me with if anything more
sympathy towards the police therefore his large new report should
be looked into and not covered up by the police.

4] My new complaint has many different elements of new evidence in
addition to my previous complaint as new evidence has come to light
and new a person has come in the frame called Brian Little.
XXXXXXXX has confirmed how shocked he is that Brian Little lied in
court and that he withheld the vital 1992 records of the
Chapplehope Burn nest site is missing yet every other year is there
accept the one that is needed to show the age of the chicks in
question and if it had two eggs and two chicks on the date in
question. Brian Little said he had the information in his diary but
he did not bring it with him for my court case even though that was
the only year in question. Little also tried to lie in court about
marking the peregrine falcon eggs with black spirit based pen then
when his lies were politely put to him in court he changed his
story and said I could have removed the marking however this is now
found to be untrue. It is accepted that Shorrock had at this point
secretly removed half of the peregrine eggs that produce my young
peregrine falcons and his tests that confirmed none of the
peregrine falcon eggs seized from my home and entrusted to him by
the police had any of Brian Little’s black spirit based pen. The
situation is clear conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and
it must be criminally investigated by an independent party. I have
the evidence to prove what I have just said that can be supplied.

5] Without doubt the police have made no attempt to contact me to
interview me in relation to my new evidence and complaints moreover
XXXXX has not been contacted to explain his views therefore how can
the police say that my accusations are wrong if they have not even
looked into them? Given the new evidence it is insulting to say
that my complaint is repetitious as the evidence is now
overwhelming and in need of a criminal investigation and not a
police cover up. Clearly Northumbria Police are engaged in a
criminal cover up that needs to be investigated independently as
Northumbria cannot be trusted and this fact has been confirmed in
the last correspondence that I have just received. My views are
mirrored by other people in a similar situation as me.

6] It should be noted that my complaint is only the first stage of
my complaints. There is a lot more to follow.

7] My complaint must be put in context with the many other similar
complaints throughout the UK that have been made about the police
and the RSPB by totally independent people from me making the same
allegations about the same person. For example note the comments
from the XXXXXXX case from a judge that said he could not believe
Shorrock and he was liable for the criminal damage to XXXXX’s door
which in affect meant that Shorrock was a burglar. It should be
noted that Hampshire police have also refused to investigate
Shorrock’s crimes even after what the judge has said. I have also
enclosed Shorrock’s confidential report that proves Shorrock lied
to Hampshire police which is one of the reasons that I want the
police and RSPB reports into my case.

8] I have been informed that Shorrock will no longer be allowed on
police raids given his past criminal activities.

What more do you need before you act in the public interest as the
police are breaching their duty of care and conspiring to pervert
the course of justice? We are dealing with a national conspiracy to
support Shorrock in relation to pervert the course of justice and
the police are refusing to investigate.

Information request.
Has there been a memo or any instructions sent out to the police or
any government bodies not to use the RSPB [Shorrock] including not
to go on Police raids?

Have there been any instructions whether written or verbal to any
government body not to use the RSPB [Shorrock] to control evidence
given the corruption of the past?

Can we have all the information that you hold on the RSPB
[Shorrock] and their corruption?

Thank you for your help.

Derek Canning LLB [hons]

Please note the reports below of new evidence and evidence that has
been withheld and lied about

Note the newspaper article that proves the iPCC needs to be
investigated and reformed in the public interest as the
organisation is not fulfilling it's mandate to the British public.

'The worst of all outcomes'
Heralded as a force for change at its launch, the Independent
Police Complaints Commission is out of touch, ineffective and takes
the side of the police rather than the public, claims former member
John Crawley
•
•
•
• Tweet this
• John Crawley
• The Guardian, Wednesday 8 April 2009
• Article history

Clashes between police and protestors during the G20 summit in
London highlighted the sort of controversies the IPCC might have to
address. Photograph: Tim Ireland/PA
Hopes were high when the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC) was launched in April 2004 that there would now be a
reformed police complaints system - providing legal rights for
complainants - that was above all independent, so that police were
not investigating themselves. After 20 years working for a housing
and social care agency in inner-city Birmingham, I joined the IPCC,
as one of 18 new commissioners, with the aim of righting
injustices. We claimed to be the most powerful civilian oversight
body in the world, and we prepared to change the world. Five years
on, I decided to leave. So what had gone wrong?
Only around 100 IPCC investigations, plus 150 police investigations
"managed" by the IPCC, are undertaken each year, compared to 29,000
complaints. The majority of those 100 are not even complaints about
day-to-day policing, but concern incidents where Article 2 of the
Human Rights Act - the police's duty to safeguard life - may be
involved, and by law require IPCC investigation. Some, such as the
shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube in 2005 and
possibly the death last week of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests
in London, rightly attract great public concern. But the question,
"Do you have to be dead before the IPCC takes an interest in your
case?", is too near the truth.
Intrusive power
Against this trend, I managed for some years to secure resources to
initiate investigations into complaints about operational policing,
such as stop and search and unlawful detention. My investigations
into West Midlands police's excessive and inappropriate use of
section 60 searches - a highly intrusive power whereby the
constable does not have to have a "reasonable suspicion" to justify
the stop - got demonstrable results: from 2004 to 2007, the use of
this power reduced dramatically. I also gave high priority to
complainants' appeals against local police's own investigations,
including stop and search and unlawful arrest allegation cases in
the Metropolitan police.
Under the system the IPCC replaced, few complaints were
substantiated, a tiny number of officers faced discipline, and
police investigations were strung out over years. Figures from
2007/08 show that nothing much has changed under the IPCC. In that
year, just 11% of complaints were upheld, but your chances of
success varied wildly, depending on where you complained. In West
Yorkshire or Humberside, 96% of all complaints were dismissed, but
in Bedfordshire 20% were upheld. Even more worrying, just 1% of
allegations of serious assault were substantiated. And as a result
of complaints, only 15 officers lost their jobs, one was demoted,
and 24 were fined a few days' pay - a total of 0.028% of the
national workforce.
I have no wish to impugn the large majority of upright officers,
but these statistics disclose a complaints system that fails to
identify or punish the minority who abuse their office, and it
serves the decent majority ill.
There were 2,260 appeals against local police investigations of
complaints in 2007/08 - a significant measure of dissatisfaction
with a system of investigation. Fewer than one in five were upheld
by the IPCC.
The police watchdog has failed to become a complainant-focused,
public-facing and customer-serving organisation. It has hidden
itself away, choosing often remote and inaccessible offices,
avoiding face-to-face contact with the public or complainants. I
handled the West Midlands, which has the second largest police
force in the country, yet the IPCC has no office in the region,
employs virtually no one from there and, since I left, has no
commissioner resident in the region.
You can walk into any police station and make a complaint, but you
cannot walk into an IPCC office and do so. Police officers are
regular visitors to the IPCC, and staff make frequent visits to
police professional standards (complaints handling) departments to
discuss cases. High priority is afforded to staff and commissioners
attending the annual cycle of conferences organised by the variety
of policing organisations, but no comparable priority is given to
identifying and speaking at events and organisations working for
complainants' interests.
The IPCC's focus on the police, rather than the public, is evident
in its decisions. It sees itself as part of the wider "family" of
police agencies, such as the National Police Improvement Agency, HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Association of Chief Police
Officers, all under the paternalistic wing of the Home Office, the
paymaster and ringmaster.
Its 400 staff and budget (£32.2m in 2007-08) are mostly funded by
the Home Office. Full-time commissioners (board members), appointed
by the home secretary for a five-year term of office, are paid
£75,000 a year and are led by a full-time executive chair.
Commissioners must by law have no police background, and are there
to safeguard the IPCC's independence. However, former police and
customs officers fill many investigatory and management roles, and
its two chief executives have both come from the Home Office.
Bureaucratic approach
Commissioners seeking a second term must reapply for their jobs
from scratch, which inevitably compromises the independence of the
role. I concluded reluctantly that I could no longer support an
organisation producing the worst of all outcomes - timidity towards
police accountability and redress for complainants, combined with a
drawn-out bureaucratic approach that can penalise innocent police
officers, who have a cloud hanging over them sometimes for years.
We are left with a veneer of independence, but a complaints body
that is largely absent from the complaints system it oversees.
Despite its much-flaunted values, the IPCC rarely debated
fundamental questions about its strategy and priorities. The
resignation of the Police Action Lawyers Group - solicitors who
specialise in police complaints work - from the IPCC advisory board
in 2007 because it felt it had no influence, and the broader
concern about how the voice of complainants and the public could be
heard within the IPCC, were never debated.
Commissioners have become ornamental, and the pressure was to
delegate more and more to managers, including vital decisions on
whether the IPCC should get involved in a complaint investigation.
Even allegations of serious criminal assault are now routinely left
for investigation by the police, although just 1% of such
complaints are upheld by the police.
What is the taxpayer getting for a commission costing millions of
pounds? Strong lay involvement of people who bring independent
judgment is a critical ingredient, but the commission has presided
supinely over their irrelevance.
So what is to be done? I propose that four key reforms are urgently
required.
First, the chair needs to be a part-time, non-executive appointment
with the task of supporting and empowering an effective commission
that is driving the complaints system and taking the key decisions
on cases and the direction of the organisation. All commissioner
appointments should be for only one term of six or seven years,
removing the potential for reappointment to be a source of pressure
on independence.
Second, the IPCC must boost dramatically the number and range of
its own investigations, while cutting the length of its
investigations.
Third, the Commons public accounts committee recently criticised
the IPCC for having no feedback mechanism from complainants (or
police officers) on the quality of its services. It must become a
public and complainant-facing organisation, adopting an ombudsman
type of service, with the focus on proper redress for the public.
Finally, while commissioners cannot make all of the decisions, they
must take proper responsibility for investigations and appeal
decisions.
The press is littered with public concern about current police
tactics, including the way that demonstrations are handled. These
issues particularly affect younger people, and we risk yet another
disaffected generation. How the IPCC addresses what may be
increasing policing controversies associated with protest movements
will be a critical test of whether it is worth preserving or is a
failed model.
• John Crawley was a commissioner at the IPCC from 2004 to 2008

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]