Police corruption and being above the law

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

Please supply all the information that you hold on the matter
highlighhted in the newspaper article especially in relation to the
police being above the law and how this relates to Northumbria
police and Yorkshire police.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/corrup...
Corrupt police can't be touched
Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent
Thursday, 10 July 1997
• Share
• Print
• Email
• Text Size
o Normal
o Large
o Extra Large
SPONSORED LINKS:
Ads by Google

Become A Police Officer
Study Criminal Justice onlinewith U. of Phoenix. Learn more.
www.CriminalJusticePhoenix.com

Become A Police Officer
SWAT, K9, Narcotics, CSI & More.Online Degrees For Police Careers
www.Public-Service.US/PoliceCareers

Police Officer Schools
Request free info from schoolsoffering police training programs!
police.do-something.com

Become A Police Officer
Become a Police Officer Online!Full Financial Aid Available.
www.CashForCops.net
The chief constable of the country's second biggest police force
has corrupt officers working for him but is powerless to sack them.
Edward Crew, head of West Midlands Police, said that some of his
staff would have been automatically dismissed for dishonesty if
they worked for a supermarket, but he was forced to keep them on
because of protective practices.
"There are people working in this force that wouldn't be employed
by Sainsbury's," he told The Independent. His concerns are shared
by other chiefs throughout the country and the police complaints
watchdog, who are urging the Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, to
change the law.
Mr Crew, and fellow chief constables in England and Wales, have
asked Mr Straw to reduce the standard of proof to allow forces to
sack police officers considered corrupt or grossly incompetent. At
present, it is extremely difficult to remove anyone - last year
only 98 were sacked. To sack a police officer, evidence that proves
"beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty is needed - a far
higher standard than in civil cases or industrial tribunals.
Instant dismissals are also prevented except in the most
exceptional cases.
Mr Crew said: "In Sainsbury's, if they have a man whose hand is
caught in the till they will release [sack] them. I couldn't do
this, I have to prosecute and prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
There are a very small number of officers in this force, and in the
police service nationally, who I suspect of having been involved in
serious breaches in the criminal law, where it's not possible to
obtain evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt they were involved
in that behaviour."
He continued: "I have officers in this force who should not be
serving police officers. If we were assessing their standards of
behaviour to the standard required of other employers, these people
would not be working."
He added: "I have officers who have been to court and have been
found not guilty of criminal offences by a jury and they continue
to serve in this force because I cannot, in the current
arrangement, [use] evidence that was given to the court."
Earlier this week, the West Midlands Police became the second force
to set up a confidential internal telephone hotline for staff to
pass on information about suspected corrupt officers. The call for
reform of the system by Mr Crew, and the Association of Chief
Police Officers has the support of the independent Police
Complaints Authority (PCA). The Home Secretary has agreed to
re-examine the issue.
The Police Federation, which represents all ranks below
superintendent - the vast bulk of the 127,000 officers in England
and Wales - is furious at the action by chief constables and have
accused them of reneging on early promises.
Sir Paul Condon, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has
already criticised what he believes is a growing trend among police
officers accused of serious corruption and malpractice of avoiding
disciplinary hearings by taking sick leave and retiring on grounds
of ill health with index- linked benefits.
Mr Crew is also critical of the "double jeopardy" system, whereby
evidence used against a police officer in a criminal trial cannot
be re-used at a disciplinary hearing. The Crown Prosecution Service
has privately admitted that it sometimes fails to bring charges
against a police officer because it fears a jury will acquit him or
her and thereby deny an opportunity for the evidence to be heard at
a disciplinary hearing.
Mr Crew also believes that the high level of proof prevents him
from sacking some officers who he believes have sexually harassed
female colleagues.
Peter Moorhouse, chairman of the PCA, yesterday agreed that there
are some corrupt officers who are being protected by the system,
but said they were a "small minority". A PCA spokesman said: "We
sympathise with Mr Crew and would like to see changes to the
system."
The Police Federation argues that the police need extra protection
against malicious complaints. Ian Westwood, vice chairman of the
federation, said: "If chief constables believe officers are corrupt
they should be dealt with at court and sentenced to imprisonment.
We are concerned that people will be got rid of without proper
evidence just because someone suspects they are corrupt."
Bent coppers, page 9

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [hons]

Dear Athena Cass,

still waiting, the corruption goes on

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Phil Johnston,

My case and complaint relates to 1995. Given what you have said
please answer my letter dated April 2009.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Phil Johnston,

I have sent a letter dated 10 April 2009 many times yet I have not
had a reply. If you were to unblock my email I could send you the
letter again to you.
Below is the first page from the letter in question. There a total
of 164 pages in relation to the letter that is being ignored. The
letter was in red type to emphasize the content of the letter.

'IPCC ANITA LENNON 12 February 2009
Complaint against the IPCC
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx

10 April 2009.

The Complaints Officer
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1 VBH

Dear JEMMA CASEY/PHILIP JOHNSTON

Ref: Complaint against the IPCC

Thank you for the disclosure material and your letter dated the 3
April 2009. Given the content of the evidence I feel so shocked
that I am compelled to pass comment and ask questions even before I
have finished my final complaint in relation to the crimes of the
police and Shorrock.

It is interesting to note that the only letter that you sent me by
mistake [Mrs S] reflects my views of the IPCC to some extent and
others. If I may explain you have sent me a total random member of
the public complaint who I have never met and the person reflects
my views. This has to be more than just coincidence. Given this
fact please disclose the following evidence:
1] The number of people who have made complaints in the last 13
years to the IPCC about the RSPB and how many have resulted in
criminal prosecutions?
2] How many complaints have been made about the activities of the
police and other organisations in the last 2 years and how many
complaints have resulted in police officers being prosecuted and
non police officers?
3] What percent of complaints resulted in criminal actions over the
last two years?
4] What percentage of people was happy and not happy with the way
their complaints were investigated and the outcome over the last
two years?
5] Why DID THE IPCC change its name to the IPCC?'

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Phil Johnston,

What percentage of internal reviews have the iPCC up held?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Phil Johnston,

I have checked the avenues that you recommended but to no avail as
I have just found a lot of information that cleverly goes no where.
Given what I just said please just state the number of internal
reviews that have been up held and what percentage have been turned
down.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]